create-upnify-opportunity

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 states this is a creation operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is a write/mutation tool, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. The mention of 'requires tkProspecto from search' hints at a dependency but doesn't fully explain behavioral constraints.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key prerequisite. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the prerequisite into a second sentence for clarity.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about what happens after creation (success response, error handling), permissions needed, system constraints, or how this tool fits into broader workflows. The prerequisite hint helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., commission as decimal, prospect token from search). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the tkProspecto requirement, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships, validation rules, or business logic. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new opportunity') and target resource ('for a prospect in Upnify CRM'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-upnify-prospect or create-upnify-reminder. However, it doesn't specify what an 'opportunity' entails in the CRM context, leaving some ambiguity about the exact nature of the resource being created.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning the prerequisite 'requires tkProspecto from search', which suggests this tool should be used after obtaining a prospect token via search-upnify-contacts. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. updating opportunities), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the parameter requirement.

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