Save opportunity workflow

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 the subscription requirement but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, what 'clear' means for the note, or the response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary actions and provides the key prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits explanation of core parameters (gameId, note), what 'clear' means, and what the user should expect after the call. The description covers the action but not the operational context.

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 but largely fails. It implicitly maps the status enum to verbs, but does not explain 'gameId' or 'note' at all. This adds little value beyond the raw 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs (save, plan, dismiss, publish, clear) and identifies the resource (PeepTrend opportunity workflow status). It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform checks or read details, making it clear this is the mutation tool for workflow status.

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 usage by listing the possible status actions and notes the prerequisite of an active PeepTrend subscription. It is clear when to use this tool versus siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it lacks a perfect 5.

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