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

Beyond the 'destructive' annotation, the description provides critical constraints: 'It does not message the contact,' which is a specific behavioral limitation. It also explains the operational consequence of the change ('it counts in lost-deal reports').

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 extremely efficient, packing the operational consequence, behavioral constraints, prerequisite usage, and technical details (POST path) into a concise, well-structured text block.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers all necessary contextual information, including the change to deal status and its impact on reporting. The constraints are clearly defined, making the definition complete for agent execution.

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?

Since the schema coverage is 100%, the structured data already fully defines the parameters (deal_id, reason, note). The description primarily reinforces the purpose of the inputs rather than adding new semantic meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('mark a deal as Lost') and the resource ('deal in Revamp CRM'). It is highly specific and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like revampcrm_mark_deal_won.

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 provides explicit guidance on prerequisite usage by advising the agent to 'Check the deal first with revampcrm_search_deals.' This sets a clear operational flow before invoking the tool.

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