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

Annotations already disclose the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds two useful behavioral facts: the move is written to the deal's history, and a lost status pairs with lost_reason. It still omits reversibility, permission needs, and the fact that repeated calls are non-idempotent.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and the status options front-loaded and the history side effect last.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, the status set, and the visible side effect. It leaves minor gaps such as whether stage/status can be supplied alone or what a partial update means, but nothing critical 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?

With 60% schema coverage, the schema documents stage, pipeline and lost_reason well. The description adds the conditional linkage 'lost (with lost_reason)' and clarifies that status and stage moves can be combined, which is genuine meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Move a deal to another stage... and/or set its status') and enumerates the exact status outcomes (won, lost, abandoned, open). It is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like crm_save_opportunity or crm_update_pipeline.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the 'and/or' framing, which tells the agent a move and a status change can be combined. However, it never states when to choose this over crm_save_opportunity or crm_opportunity, nor any preconditions, so the routing guidance is only inferable.

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