log_win_reason

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and adds essentially nothing: it does not say the entry is persisted, whether it is append-only or overwrites a prior reason, whether it requires an existing lead, or what it returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the essential qualifier ('one phrase') is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a two-param mutation with no annotations the description omits usage context, lead_id semantics, and any behavioral disclosure. It is too thin to let an agent invoke it with confidence.

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. 'One phrase why the client chose you' usefully constrains the reason parameter to a short free-text phrase, but lead_id is left completely unexplained and its relationship to capture_lead is unstated.

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 phrase 'Win journal: one phrase why the client chose you' conveys the intent of recording the reason a deal was won, so an agent can roughly infer the resource. However, the action verb is only implied by the tool name, and it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like record_won_amount or win_journal.

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 call this versus record_won_amount (which captures the deal value) or win_journal, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the lead already being marked won. The agent must guess the trigger condition entirely.

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