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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real substance beyond them: delete is a soft delete, update leaves omitted fields unchanged, stageId assignment moves the deal between stages, and restore via deletedAt undoes an entire prior delete. Remaining gaps are permissions requirements and pagination/return behavior for create.

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?

A single dense sentence organized by action, with the highest-risk operation (delete) flagged inline rather than buried. No filler, and the action list is front-loaded right after the verb.

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 12-parameter destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action selection and the delete/restore lifecycle well but omits what create returns (the new id), whether delete accepts only a single id, and never mentions lostReason or valueCents semantics. Adequate, not complete.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters including their action applicability. The description adds only marginal semantics ('stageId moves it', 'ids from deals_list deleted') and says nothing about lostReason or the currency implication of valueCents.

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?

Opens with a broad verb ('Change deals') but immediately enumerates the four supported operations (create/update/delete/restore), which pins the resource down. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming deal_stages_list as the source of stageId and deals_list as the source of restore ids, so the agent knows this is the write counterpart to those readers.

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?

Each action carries a short usage cue: create needs title and stageId from deal_stages_list, restore takes ids from deals_list deleted, delete is soft and should be confirmed first. That is clear per-action context, though there is no explicit 'do not use this for X, use sibling Y instead' exclusion.

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