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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that it's a POST (a write operation) but does not state what gets removed, whether it is reversible, authorization needs, or response behavior. This is a significant gap 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 description is one sentence and front-loads the endpoint, which is efficient. However, the final phrase 'for opportunity contact/source/tag maintenance' is vague and could be sharpened to 'removes sources from an opportunity,' reducing ambiguity without adding length.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain required inputs, side effects, and return value. It does not mention that perform_as is needed for user identity, what the body structure is, or what the response will be. The endpoint reference alone is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter meaning; it simply repeats the endpoint. The body parameter is described in the schema as a generic JSON object, leaving its contents unclear, but the description fails to elaborate on what the body should contain (e.g., list of source IDs).

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 names the specific Lever endpoint (POST /opportunities/:opportunity/removeSources), which makes the operation clear from the name and path. However, the trailing phrase 'for opportunity contact/source/tag maintenance' is vague and muddles whether it removes sources, tags, or both, so it doesn't fully distinguish from siblings like remove_opportunity_tags.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like add_opportunity_sources or remove_opportunity_links. Usage is only implied by the tool name and endpoint, which is insufficient.

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