record_won_amount

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. It never says whether the amount overwrites a previously recorded value, whether the write is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or how it interacts with the lead's status; for a mutation tool 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of the tool name. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 explained. However, with zero annotations, zero parameter documentation, and a mutation of a CRM record, the description leaves out the write semantics, the relationship to record_payment/log_win_reason, and any preconditions an agent would need.

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 definition must compensate. "The agreed price" loosely maps to the amount parameter, but lead_id is left entirely undefined (is it the lead's ID, a slug, an external reference?) and no format, currency, or unit guidance is given for the numeric amount.

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 and resource (record the agreed price) tied to a named trigger (winning a lead), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbors like record_payment or log_win_reason, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

"Once you win a lead" gives a clear triggering condition, which is more than most siblings offer. But it names no alternatives and gives no exclusion — e.g. when record_payment or log_win_reason would be the correct call instead — leaving the routing decision implicit.

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