Define a custom lead field

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real value by naming the OAuth scope (luca:draft), data sensitivity (redacted), and the retry-safety contract including server-side key generation. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the subsequent metadata lines are terse. It is slightly list-like but every line carries operational 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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description fills the essential gaps (scopes, idempotency, workspace override). Body field semantics (key pattern, type enum, options) are left to the schema, which is acceptable given the coverage.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented structurally; the description supplements this by explaining that idempotencyKey enables safe retries and is server-generated when omitted, and that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the environment default. This adds behavior the schema does not convey.

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 pair (create or update) and resource (custom lead field definition), which cleanly separates it from the sibling luca_leads_field_definitions_list. It does not explicitly name the list sibling as an alternative, keeping it just below 5.

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?

Provides useful operational context (required scopes, idempotency key, workspace override) but never states when to choose this over luca_leads_field_definitions_list, luca_leads_create, or luca_leads_update. Usage is implied by the required scope rather than spelled out.

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