teamleader_deal_move

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 simply states the action without revealing side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or response format. For a mutating operation, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation.

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?

The tool has a simple operation, complete schema coverage, and no output schema, but the absence of annotations and behavioral details leaves gaps. The description adequately states the action but omits context about validation, success/failure behavior, or post-conditions, making it minimally complete rather than fully informative.

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 100% with both parameters having descriptive names ('Deal UUID' and 'Target phase UUID'). The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, keeping the score at the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Move a deal to a different phase') that clearly conveys the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deal_win and deal_lose, which are specific phase transitions, and deal_update, which modifies other deal attributes.

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 when to use the tool (when changing a deal's phase) but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. No mention is made of using deal_update for other modifications or deal_win/lose for specific outcomes, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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