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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true, which tells the agent this writes state; the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on permissions, side effects, or what happens on duplicate names. The required-field remark is already in both the schema and the annotations' title.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and required field. The trailing 'Insightly: POST /Opportunities.' is low-value API trivia but costs little.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about what is returned (e.g. new opportunity id), error behavior, or which optional fields matter. The schema carries most weight, but the description leaves the agent without any operational context.

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 85%, so the schema already documents bid_type, bid_amount, probability, custom_fields, forecast_close_date format, etc. The description only restates that opportunity_name is required, adding no semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Create a sales opportunity') and names the required field, clearly distinguishing it from the create_* siblings for other record types and from update_opportunity. It does not explicitly route the agent between create/update, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as insightly_update_opportunity for existing records. The only usage signal is that opportunity_name is required.

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