update_lead_status

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: status values gate campaign eligibility, and opted_out causes permanent suppression. It still omits what statuses are valid.

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?

Three tight sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the status semantics. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 not be documented, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is the enumeration of legal status values, which appears in no structured field yet is essential to invoking the tool correctly.

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% across three required parameters. The description gestures at status values ('new/qualified', 'opted_out') but never defines the full accepted set, and says nothing about account or lead_id. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but only partially does.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Change a lead's local status.' The word 'local' usefully scopes it against account-level actions. However, it never names the obvious sibling (opt_out_lead) it overlaps with, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

It gives useful downstream context ('Only new/qualified leads can receive campaign drafts') and warns that opted_out 'permanently suppresses further outreach.' But it never states when an agent should call this tool versus opt_out_lead or upsert_lead, leaving the primary selection decision implicit.

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