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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it restricts movement to the same funnel, indicates that the optional reason is for refusal, and discloses a side effect—the transfer is written to the deal feed with attribution to the employee's API key. This is valuable for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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 concise: three short sentences that front-load the core action, then provide the optional-reason nuance and the important feed-logging side effect. No words are wasted.

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 simple mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action, scope constraint, optional parameter usage, and a relevant side effect. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and any mention of response or error behavior, but these are not critical for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the reason parameter as being for refusals and implies stage_id must belong to the same funnel. However, deal_id and stage_id are only self-evident from names and receive no explicit semantic or constraint detail beyond the same-funnel statement.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Перевести сделку' (move a deal) to another stage 'той же воронки' (of the same funnel). This clearly identifies the action and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as add_deal_note or list_sales_stages.

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?

The intended use is strongly implied by the verb and resource, and the note about specifying a reason for refusal adds practical guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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