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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds concrete consequences beyond them: sparse update semantics ('only the fields you pass are altered'), activity-history logging per call, close-date re-stamping on repeat 'closed', notes replacing rather than appending, and removal from open pipeline revenue.

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-loaded with purpose and the sibling alternative, then layered constraints. It is on the long side and a few clauses (e.g. the CRM-pipeline rationale) could compress, but nearly every sentence carries operational 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, sparse-update behavior, side effects, unit conventions, and the semantic distinction from its closest sibling. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: 'value' is in MINOR CURRENCY UNITS (2500 = $25.00) and notes REPLACE the existing note. Those are exactly the semantics an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 specific verb and resource ('Change a deal's status, value, or notes') and immediately draws a boundary against the sibling move_deal_stage, which an agent can use to disambiguate without inspecting either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: prefer move_deal_stage for pipeline movement, use this tool for value and notes. It also states the precondition (API key plus deal ownership) and warns against blind repeated calls.

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