move_deal_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a mutation requiring module entitlement and write scope plus a preview/confirm workflow, but says nothing about reversibility, side effects (history, automations), or what a failure looks like.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by prerequisites and the confirm step. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what moves, what is required, and a safety practice. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior and reversibility, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so deal_id and target_stage_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter format, source of stage IDs, or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Move a CRM deal to a different pipeline stage') and clarifies the effect ('advance or regress it on the board'), so an agent understands exactly what changes. It does not explicitly differentiate from the related sibling update_deal, which also mutates deals, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

Provides concrete prerequisites ('Requires the Sales module and the write scope') and a workflow instruction ('Preview the target stage and confirm before calling'), which is real usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives, so it never says when to use update_deal vs this tool.

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