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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: closing/reopening effects, history tracking via crm_get_deal, per-call cost, and that failed calls are free. These are meaningful operational details not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action and follows with the most important side effects and cost. Four sentences, no filler, and each sentence adds useful 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?

Covers the operation, side effects, history behavior, and cost well enough for a mutation tool with no output schema. It does not describe the move tool's own return value, but most agent-critical context is present.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies stage can be by name or id, pipeline selects another pipeline, and lost_reason is required when losing a deal, though it does not explain every parameter constraint.

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 the specific action (move a deal) and resource (deal) plus the target (stage, optionally another pipeline). It is clearly distinct from siblings like crm_save_deal and crm_get_deal.

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?

Explains the key usage semantics: moving to a won/lost stage closes the deal, requires lost_reason when lost, and moving to an open stage reopens it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one, which keeps it below a 5.

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