move_lead_stage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Move a contact,' which implies a mutation, but does not mention whether it is reversible, what permissions are needed, what happens to the contact's history, or what the response will be. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 description is two short sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. The example is concise and adds a helpful real-world illustration without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple mutation with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides no information about return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., whether the contact must already be in the pipeline), or post-conditions. Given the absence of annotation support, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 input schema documents all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters—it only provides a natural-language example that does not map directly to the schema fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter semantics.

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 function: 'Move a contact to a different pipeline stage.' It uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('contact', 'pipeline stage'), and the example clarifies the intended use. No sibling tool performs the same action, so it is unambiguous.

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 example provides a concrete use case ('Move John to the Closed Won stage'), implying when to use the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like update_contact, which could also modify contact data.

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