Update Lead Capture Customizations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds material context beyond them: the required token permission, the delegated-permission scope, that confirm=true is mandatory for the write, and that the call may share access, notify people, or incur provider charges. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it stops short of explaining reversibility or provider-specific failure modes.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences with zero waste. The permissions/confirm block is verbose boilerplate but is clearly sectioned and load-bearing for correct invocation, so it earns its place without harming readability.

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 non-idempotent, destructive mutation with no output schema and a nested payload, the description supplies the auth requirements, confirm requirement, and side-effect warnings an agent needs. It could go further on how the flat provider/settings params interact with the nested payload, but the rich schema covers that gap.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters including the nested payload/settings objects. The description adds only the general note that a single provider is configured, which is marginal beyond the enum and field docs already present; 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?

States a specific verb (configures/updates) and resource (a single lead-capture provider on a video), and clarifies scope with 'Only the selected provider is changed,' which distinguishes it from the broader update_customizations siblings. It does not name the read counterpart get_lead_capture_customizations, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage context ('single lead-capture provider,' 'only the selected provider is changed') but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing among the many update_*_customizations siblings. The permissions and confirm=gating are present but that is prerequisite information, not selection guidance.

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