accelo_create_prospect

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, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether the call is destructive/irreversible, what the response contains (new ID?), or duplicate-handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by a structured arg list. The Args block mirrors the schema somewhat, but each line earns its place by supplying semantics the schema omits.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description documents inputs adequately but is silent on return value, side effects and prerequisite data. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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, and it largely does: it marks the three required fields and adds units/format detail the schema lacks, such as 'unix timestamp' for date_due and the '0-5' range for weighting. It falls short of explaining what 'fields' or 'status_id' values are acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new prospect') and clarifies the domain entity with '(sale)'. Sibling tools like accelo_list_prospects, accelo_get_prospect and accelo_update_prospect make the CRUD role inferable, but the description never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites beyond the required-parameter list. An agent is not told, for example, that an affiliation and prospect type must already exist, or when to prefer creating a prospect over a job or request.

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