Flag a lead for human attention

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the critical semantic clarification that despite the name 'flag_for_human' this only writes a prefixed note and does NOT route, alert, or reprioritize. That single sentence prevents a serious misreading of the tool's effect and is exactly the value-add annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it does not do, when to use it, and a concrete example. Front-loaded with the clarifying negative constraint before the usage guidance.

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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the explicit effect description, usage triggers, and example, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret its effect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including that 'reason' is shown to the coach verbatim. The description's example call reinforces leadId/reason usage but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (add a note to a lead, tagged [needs-human], visible on the timeline) and immediately distinguishes itself from routing/alerting siblings by clarifying it is 'an ordinary note with a prefix — it does not route, alert, or reprioritize anything.' An agent can tell exactly what happens without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use criteria ('a conversation needs judgment an agent should not exercise') with concrete trigger categories (payment claims, distress, legal), plus an escalation instruction ('tell the coach directly if it is urgent'). Nothing is left to inference.

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