opportunities_create_opportunity

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, but the description doesn't clarify side effects, authentication requirements, or record creation semantics. It simply repeats the verb, offering nothing that helps the agent anticipate behavior.

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 concise (two words), but this is under-specification rather than efficient structure. For a tool with 9 parameters and significant complexity, a pithy description is not appropriate. It lacks any front-loaded essential information that would help an agent decide rapidly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 4 required, no output schema), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what an opportunity is, how to populate fields, what values are valid for status, or what the response might contain. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without opening the schema and even then, key semantics remain ambiguous.

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 only 33% (3 of 9 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description provides no parameter information at all. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it doesn't. Even the required parameters (pipelineId, name, status, contactId) are unexplained beyond their names and types.

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 "Create Opportunity" is a tautology of the tool name. It states the verb and resource but adds no specificity about what an opportunity is, what data it requires, or how it differs from sibling tools like opportunities_update_opportunity or opportunities_delete_opportunity. It provides zero unique information beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent has no way to know when it should call this instead of opportunities_upsert_opportunity or opportunities_create_opportunity (which might also create).

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