createDeal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'FUB expects peopleIds and price', which hints at backend requirements, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, irreversibility of creation, or return value/response format. 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?

The description is two short sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose statement. Every word earns its place: it states the action, highlights key API expectations, and lists the required fields. No fluff or redundant detail.

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 creation tool with 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error conditions, authentication expectations, or the meaning of the many commission/date fields. The description is minimally viable but leaves substantial gaps for a complex endpoint.

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 description adds value by noting that FUB expects peopleIds and price, which are not in the required schema but may be operationally important. However, schema coverage is only 50% and the description only highlights two of the many undocumented parameters (possessionDate, commissions, etc.), so it only partially compensates for the schema's gaps.

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 opens with 'Create a deal.' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like updateDeal, getDeal, and listDeals. It also adds critical requirement details ('name + stageId required'), reinforcing the creation purpose.

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 implies the tool is for creating deals, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like updateDeal for modifications or getDeal for retrieval. It provides no exclusionary guidance ('if you need to modify, use updateDeal'), so the usage context is only implied.

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