teamleader_deal_lose

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 only states the action 'Mark a deal as lost' without explaining consequences such as irreversibility, required deal state, or side effects like closing the deal or triggering notifications. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is highly concise and front-loaded, but lacks any structural expansion (e.g., caveats or examples) that would improve usefulness while still remaining concise.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity, the description is insufficient. It omits behavioral context such as whether the action is reversible, whether a reason is recommended, and how this differs from dealing with a won deal. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description alone is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the operation's implications.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (id, reason_id, extra_info) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The parameter meanings are clear from the schema alone.

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 'Mark a deal as lost' uses a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('deal') with a clear outcome ('as lost'), unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools like teamleader_deal_win and teamleader_deal_update. It is concise and directly states the tool's 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the deal must be open) or contrast with teamleader_deal_win or teamleader_deal_update, leaving usage context entirely to the name and user inference.

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