Record a lead's consent

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it states the underlying endpoint, required scopes, data sensitivity (redacted), the confirm: true requirement with rejection behavior, the server-generated idempotency key fallback, and the workspace override mechanism. The destructive warning aligns with destructiveHint=true rather than contradicting it, and the idempotency-key note is about safe retries, not a claim of inherent idempotency.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a tight operational block covering endpoint, scopes, idempotency, confirmation, and workspace override. Dense but every line carries a distinct constraint; no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers auth scopes, destructive confirmation, idempotency, and workspace resolution. The main gap is the semantics of the nested body fields, which is only partially addressed.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the otherwise undocumented `id` parameter via 'POST /api/leads/{id}/consents' and hints at the channel/purpose semantics, but it says nothing about evidenceId, source, or grantedAt, leaving part of the nested body unexplained.

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: 'Grant explicit lead consent for a channel purpose,' which is distinct from the revoke sibling by the verb alone. It does not explicitly name luca_leads_consents_revoke as the inverse operation, but an agent can differentiate without opening the 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?

Implies when to use it (recording consent for a channel/purpose) and lists prerequisites such as confirm: true, idempotencyKey, and workspace override, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or routing to the revoke alternative. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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