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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a concrete cost of $0.01 per call with no charge on failure, and it explains the default stage behavior for new deals. It stops short of clarifying whether updates merge or replace omitted fields, which is relevant for a save operation.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the create/update distinction, then add default behavior and cost. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 16-parameter save tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core save modes and many fields. It is incomplete about partial-update semantics and the alternate company/contact lookup parameters, which are important for calling the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 31%, the description helps by naming pipeline, stage, amount, expected close date, next step, company/contact, tags, and custom fields. However, several parameters such as title, currency, description, lost_reason, company_name, and contact_email are not explained, and the relationship between company_id/contact_id and company_name/contact_email is left unclear.

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 states a specific create-or-update deal operation and clearly distinguishes the two modes by the presence or absence of deal_id. It enumerates the main deal fields it saves, making the tool's purpose easy to identify, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as crm_move_deal or 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?

It gives clear usage context: omit deal_id to create, include deal_id to update. It also explains the default stage for a new deal. It does not mention alternatives like crm_move_deal for stage changes or when not to use this tool.

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