raynet_convert_lead_to_bc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context by stating that bc_type and bc_phase names are converted to IDs automatically. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the original lead is deleted, deactivated, or left unchanged after conversion.

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?

The description is two focused sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the non-obvious conversion behavior comes next, and the workflow cue is placed at the end. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers the key contextual points: what the tool does, the name-to-ID conversion behavior, and where it fits in the intended workflow. The schema fills in parameter details and enum discovery. It does not describe return values or edge cases, but the tool remains safely callable with the information provided.

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?

The input schema already documents all 5 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by explaining that bc_type and bc_phase are human-readable names that get converted to IDs internally, which is not obvious from the plain string types alone.

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 states a specific action ('Converts') and a specific resource transformation ('existing Lead into a BusinessCase'). It also distinguishes this from related creation tools by clarifying that bc_type and bc_phase names are automatically resolved to IDs.

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?

The description explicitly provides workflow context: use this after raynet_create_lead_full and only once the client is interested in the offer. This clearly signals when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like raynet_create_full_pipeline or state when not to use it.

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