novacrm_create_opportunity

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 does not say what happens if clientName doesn't match an existing client, whether duplicates are rejected, what permissions are needed, or what is returned on success — significant gaps for a mutation tool with 9 parameters.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted text. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness is a factor in the transparency gaps.

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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain creation semantics, required-field implications, and the client linkage behavior. A one-line summary leaves the agent without enough context to call this correctly in edge cases.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including enums with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at high coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 states a specific verb+resource — 'Cria uma oportunidade (negócio)... no pipeline de vendas' — so the agent knows it creates a sales opportunity. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like novacrm_create_proposal or novacrm_create_order, which also create pipeline-adjacent objects.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus novacrm_update_opportunity, novacrm_create_proposal, or novacrm_create_client, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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