opt_out_lead

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the mutation, idempotency, and non-destructiveness, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the suppression is permanent and it retroactively blocks already-prepared campaign deliveries, not just future drafts. It does not say whether or how the opt-out can be reversed, which is the one notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core effect ('permanently suppress outreach') front-loaded ahead of the consequence detail. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds permanence and blast radius, which is what an agent needs before a mutation; only reversibility and the relation to other lead-state tools are left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, and the description contributes only 'this account's lead handle', which loosely binds account and lead_id to the opt-out target. It gives no identifier format, no hint that lead_id must reference an existing lead (see upsert_lead/get_lead), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('suppress') and resource ('this account's lead handle'), plus the consequence scope ('blocks prepared campaign deliveries as well as future drafts'). An agent can tell this is not the same as update_lead_status or pause_account_actions, though no sibling is named to make the distinction explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is mentioned, despite siblings like pause_account_actions, update_lead_status, and cancel_thread being plausible adjacency. The agent must infer routing on its own.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.