create_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the module/scope prerequisite and a confirmation requirement, both of which are real behavioral context beyond the schema. It is silent on side effects (e.g., whether the originating lead is marked converted) and on what is returned, which leaves some gaps for a write 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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no padding: purpose, then required/optional fields, then prerequisites, then the confirmation rule. It is list-heavy in the middle but every element earns its place.

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?

With a nested-object schema, no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and field expectations adequately for a create tool. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about the result or side effects of creation, which an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

The schema's nested properties each carry their own descriptions, and the description reinforces this by naming the three required fields and most optional ones (value, currency, status, close date, probability, tags). It omits a few optional fields (customerId, proposalId, notes), but those remain documented in the schema, so no meaning is lost.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a new CRM deal") and immediately disambiguates the domain with "(sales opportunity) from a lead," which distinguishes it from create_lead and from update_deal/move_deal_stage. An agent can classify it correctly without opening the schema.

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 states concrete preconditions (Sales module enabled, write scope) and an explicit behavioral instruction ("Confirm with the user before calling"), which is usable guidance. It doesn't route the agent to any alternative (e.g., update_deal for modifying an existing deal), so it stops short of the when-not/alternatives bar.

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