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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains which lead states get cancelled, which are left to finish, and that the response reports how many remain. With destructiveHint and idempotentHint already present, this nuanced partial-cancellation behavior is exactly the extra context an agent needs.

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 dense sentences front-load the effect, then provide the exception, then give the trigger context and lookup pointer. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers what will be cancelled, what won't, what the response indicates, when to use it, and how to find required IDs. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains nodeId by describing workflow nodes and telling the agent to use campaignstack_get_workflow to find node IDs, but it never mentions workspaceId or how to obtain it, leaving one of the two required parameters only inferable from its name.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Cancel the drainable leads at a workflow node', then defines which entries are affected (WAITING, WAITING_FOR_EVENT, PENDING_REVIEW) and which are not (PROCESSING). This distinguishes the tool from workflow-update/delete and node-inspection siblings, so an agent can identify when this tool applies.

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 gives an explicit trigger: use it to drain a node when campaignstack_update_workflow or a node deletion fails with NODE_HAS_ACTIVE_LEADS, then retry the graph change. It also states what to expect for PROCESSING leads and points to campaignstack_get_workflow for finding node IDs, which is concrete routing guidance.

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