move_deal_stage

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavior: moving to closed/lost resolves the deal and affects open pipeline revenue, repeating the action is safe, and stages are not ordered allowing backward moves. It also states API key requirements. This enriches the annotations meaningfully.

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 well-structured and efficient: the first sentence nails the purpose, the second gives usage guidance and contrasts, the third details consequences and reversibility. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the length is commensurate with the tool's importance.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage caveats, behavioral effects on deals and revenue, idempotency, and backward movement. It is self-contained and leaves no significant gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (dealId as 'Deal UUID' and newStage as 'Target stage' with an enum). The description does not add further semantic detail beyond restating the tool's purpose, so it does not go beyond the schema's coverage. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool moves a deal to a different pipeline stage, using the vivid analogy of dragging a card on the board. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_deal, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance: it is the tool for pipeline progression, contrasts with update_deal for value/notes, warns about the revenue impact of moving to closed/lost, and instructs to only do so when the user confirms the outcome. It also notes the tool can move deals backwards, giving clear context for when to use it.

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