conduyt_update_master_statuses

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses replace (not merge) semantics and the resulting loss of prior custom names, immutable defaults, hard limits, the auth scope required, and the side effect that terminal statuses halt outbound automation.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is set and how it relates to the defaults, followed by constraints, then permission. Nearly every clause carries information the agent needs before calling.

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?

For a destructive single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this is close to complete: limits, permissions, and side effects are all present. It leaves one material question unanswered — what happens to contacts currently assigned to a custom status that the replace removes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the names are additive to the five defaults and are capped at 20. Some content (charset, 1-40 length) merely restates the schema pattern and maxLength.

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: sets the account's custom lead lifecycle statuses. The relationship to the five immutable defaults is spelled out, so an agent knows exactly what object is being written. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as conduyt_update_agent_statuses or conduyt_get_lifecycle_settings.

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?

Clear operational context: this REPLACES the custom list, the defaults always exist, and settings:edit is required. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., read current values with conduyt_get_lifecycle_settings first), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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