dealdesk.create_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about the mutation: no permission requirements, no idempotency or duplicate-handling behavior, no note on which fields are set at creation versus updated later via patch_case, and no return behavior. The single parenthetical about case semantics is the only added context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most important disambiguation (case, not opportunity) comes first. It is efficient, though the space used is spent on a distinction of limited value relative to the missing parameter and usage guidance.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is far too thin. An agent gets no coverage of required-vs-optional fields, no post-creation behavior, and no routing guidance among the sibling creation tools.

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 9% (only projectId is documented), so the description should compensate but adds nothing about any of the 11 parameters — not even that projectId must match the API key/OAuth project, or that the other fields are optional. Field names are largely self-describing, which prevents a 1, but no meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 DealDesk case') and adds a clarifying parenthetical about what a case is. However, the negative disambiguation targets a 'Salesforce Opportunity search', which is not among the listed siblings; it never distinguishes create_case from create_card, create_quote, or create_contact, which are the actual confusable write tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to create a case versus the many other creation tools in the sibling set (create_card, create_quote, create_company, create_contact, create_status_update). No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternative routing. The parenthetical only clarifies vocabulary, not usage.

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