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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the downstream reporting effect and, critically, that no contact notification is triggered. It omits reversibility (whether mark_deal_lost or a stage change can undo it) and any permission requirements for a destructive write.

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 the 'WRITE:' danger marker, then effect, then exclusions, then prerequisite — good ordering with no filler. The trailing 'POST /Deals/Won' is transport detail that adds little for an agent choosing a tool, the only wasted token.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers effect, side effects (no contact message) and pre-flight verification. The main residue is that it never says what the call returns on success, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents both deal_id and the optional note. The description adds nothing about either — notably never mentioning that a note is accepted — so it neither compensates nor does harm; baseline 3.

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 and resource ('mark a deal as Won in Revamp CRM') plus the concrete consequence ('its status changes and it counts in won-deal reports'). The Won framing cleanly separates it from the sibling revampcrm_mark_deal_lost without needing to name it.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Check the deal first with revampcrm_search_deals') and an explicit scope exclusion ('It does not message the contact'). It stops short of any when-not guidance, e.g. what to do if the deal is already won or already lost.

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