deal_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether this is a mutating/destructive operation, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. The description only covers basic functional intent without behavioral context.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns sections are structured clearly. However, the 'Returns' section could be more specific than 'Created deal details', and there's some redundancy between the description and parameter documentation.

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?

Given this is a creation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameter semantics well and mentions returns, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other gaps remain.

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. It provides clear semantic meaning for all 5 parameters beyond their schema titles, explaining what each represents (e.g., 'Deal name', 'Account/company ID', 'Deal value'). This adds significant value over the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples.

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 clearly states 'Create a new deal/opportunity' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'deals_list' (which lists deals) and 'task_create' (which creates tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'list_create' or 'workflow_create' beyond the resource type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing account_id), when not to use it, or what other tools might be appropriate for related operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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