teamleader_deal_win

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Mark a deal as won' without explaining permissions, reversibility, side effects, or validation rules. 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 a single sentence: 'Mark a deal as won.' It is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary information.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., deal must exist and be in a state that allows winning) and consequences. It is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 has 100% coverage with 'id' described as 'Deal UUID'. The description does not add any further meaning about the parameter, but the schema already handles it, warranting the baseline score 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 'Mark a deal as won' clearly states the action (mark) and the resource (deal) with the specific outcome (won). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `teamleader_deal_lose`, which marks a deal as lost.

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 when a deal is won, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `teamleader_deal_update` or `teamleader_deal_lose`. No exclusionary criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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