Attach a channel identity to a lead

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

Discloses matters the annotations do not: required scope (leads:write), OAuth scope, 'data sensitivity: full_content', and the idempotency-key retry contract with server-side key generation. It does not explain what the destructiveHint=true annotation actually means here (e.g. merge/overwrite of an existing identity), leaving that trait only in annotations.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then a compact block of endpoint/scope/idempotency/workspace facts with no filler prose. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers auth, scoping, and retry behavior for a nested-object mutation. It falls short only on the effect of attaching an identity (dedupe/overwrite behavior), which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 60%, and the description's parameter content (workspaceId/workspaceSlug override, idempotencyKey) largely restates the existing schema descriptions. It adds no detail on the nested body fields (channel, externalUserId, verificationStatus) that carry the real semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Attach a verified or claimed identity to a lead') and pins the underlying operation (POST /api/leads/{id}/identities). It is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling lead tools such as luca_leads_create, luca_leads_update, and luca_leads_consents_grant.

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 operational prerequisites (required scopes, required idempotency key, workspace override) which imply when the tool is callable, but never states when to prefer it over alternatives or what state the lead must be in. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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