Add a note to a lead

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 real behavioral context beyond them: the idempotency-key contract for safe retries, the required scopes for authorization, and that the operation touches 'redacted' data. That is substantive disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the API metadata is broken into short, scannable lines. The phrase 'Body requires body' is awkwardly worded but not bloated; overall it earns its length without padding.

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 mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the non-obvious operational details: idempotency, scopes, workspace override. The main residual gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance relative to sibling write tools.

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 60% and the description mostly repeats what the schema already states (idempotencyKey server generation, workspaceId/workspaceSlug override). 'Body requires body' flags the nested-object requirement, but adds little beyond the schema's own required fields. Baseline 3 for a partly-documented schema 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: 'Append a coach note to a lead.' The verb 'append' and the note resource clearly separate it from the sibling luca_leads_notes_delete, so an agent can route between the two. It stops short of an explicit contrast, keeping it just below a 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?

Gives operational prerequisites (required scopes 'leads:write', OAuth scope 'luca:draft', idempotency key handling), which function as preconditions for calling. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as luca_leads_draft or luca_leads_update, so usage is only implied.

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