create_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation creates a deal, may associate a contact, and that amount uses the portal default currency, but it omits permissions, side effects, reversibility, or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant transparency 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a useful caveat about currency. 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: pipeline values and defaults are unexplained, dealName semantics are absent, and no information is given about return values or behavior when contactId is invalid. The agent would need to open the schema (which itself lacks pipeline/amount descriptions) to invoke this reliably.

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 meaning to 'amount' by clarifying it is in the portal's default currency and to 'contactId' by noting the association is optional. With only 40% schema description coverage, it partially compensates, but 'pipeline' and 'dealName' remain semantically unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource: 'Create a new HubSpot deal.' This clearly communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like update_deal_stage and create_ticket by naming the deal resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from a potential sibling such as a search or update deal tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional contact association but does not suggest searching for a contact first via search_contacts or using update_deal_stage to modify an existing deal. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and resource.

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