crm_move_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It discloses that probability is updated and stage history is logged, which is useful. However, it does not mention reversal behavior, validation rules for stage transitions (e.g., can closed_won go back?), permission requirements, or idempotency. The disclosure is partial but not misleading.

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 a single, compact sentence. The core action is front-loaded, and the side effects are included without extra fluff. It earns its place, though it could be slightly richer without becoming verbose. No structural issues.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and two simple parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits return value details (does it return the updated deal?), error scenarios (invalid stage transition, nonexistent deal), and any permissions. For a mutation tool, an agent might need to know what to expect after calling, which is missing. A more complete description would cover these.

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 explain both parameters. It does not explicitly name deal_id or new_stage, though 'new pipeline stage' maps to new_stage. The enum values in the schema already define allowed stages, so the description adds no additional constraints or context about how the parameters interact (e.g., what probability is set to). The description adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'move' with resource 'deal' and target 'new pipeline stage' is specific and unambiguous. It also names two side effects (updates probability, logs stage history) which further clarifies the operation. It clearly distinguishes from read-only siblings like crm_get_pipeline or crm_get_timeline.

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 makes the primary use case obvious—changing a deal's stage—and implies this is the right tool for that task. However, it does not state when not to use it, mention any prerequisites (e.g., deal must exist), or call out alternative tools like crm_update_deal. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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