Add a lead area

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that the defined area is used by leads_map to tag leads and roll up counts/value, which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, each adding value: first defines the tool's action, second explains the integration with leads_map. No wasted words.

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 simple definition tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and downstream use. However, it lacks explanation of the 'project' parameter and does not specify coordinate format or constraints.

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?

The description explains the purpose of most parameters (name, lat, lng, radiusKm) but does not mention the 'project' parameter. Schema coverage is only 20%, so the description partially compensates but misses important context for a required parameter.

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 clearly states the verb 'Define' and the resource 'circular geographic area' with specific attributes (name, centre lat/lng, radius km). It also explains the downstream effect on leads_map, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_lead_location.

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 when defining lead areas for the leads map, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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