promote_deal_to_customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses real behavioral facts: Sales module dependency, write scope requirement, the fact that it is a gate for downstream creation steps, and a human-confirmation requirement. It does not cover idempotency, what happens if the customer is already in that stage, or reversibility.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, why/when it matters, and the operational prerequisites plus confirmation. The core action is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key operational context an agent needs (prerequisites, confirmation, downstream relevance). Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior such as already-promoted customers and error outcomes.

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?

There is a single parameter whose schema description is already complete (100% coverage). The description only echoes 'a deal's customer' and adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names a specific verb (promote) and resource (a deal's customer), plus the concrete side effect of linking it to the deal. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like update_customer, create_customer, or move_deal_stage.

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?

States an explicit precondition ('required gate before creating a proposal or job from a deal') that tells the agent when this tool must be used, plus a user-confirmation requirement. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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