Enroll silent leads into the rescue cadence

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable context beyond annotations: the effect is delayed and ongoing ('over the coming days') and involves outbound touches to real leads, plus an explicit confirm gate. It omits what happens to leads that are not silent or already enrolled, so not a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, the critical side-effect warning, then parameter guidance with a concrete example. The capitalized warning is well placed. Slight redundancy with the schema's own confirm text, but no wasted 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and 100% schema coverage plus rich annotations mean the description only needs to carry the intent and side-effect warning, which it does. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from the near-identical cadence/campaign enrollment siblings.

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 every parameter including confirm, leadIds, and the cadenceTemplate enum. The description restates the enum values and an example but adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource+effect: enroll silent leads into the multi-day rescue cadence. It is clear what the tool does. However it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as luca_cadences_rescue_start or luca_campaigns_enroll, so an agent cannot easily tell which to pick from the description alone.

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?

It states the confirm: true prerequisite and the side effect, which is usage-relevant, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and never names or excludes the overlapping cadence/enroll siblings. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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