crm_delete_deal

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

Beyond the annotations, the description exposes key behaviors: soft-delete semantics, dropping from the read cache and search results, idempotency (archiving again leaves it archived), and not-found errors for never-existing IDs. It also reinforces the destructive nature from the agent's perspective while aligning with the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 structured with the core action first, then usage guidance, then behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified for a destructive operation with important caveats.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers all essential context: scope requirements, error behavior, idempotency, and cache/search effects. The presence of an output schema means returning the archive confirmation is already handled, so no return-value explanation is needed.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter syntax. It does add useful context by explaining repeated calls with the same id are idempotent, but the schema already provides the essential meaning.

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 tool archives (soft-deletes) a HubSpot deal so it disappears from the pipeline board. It distinguishes itself from the sibling crm_update_deal by explicitly contrasting archiving with moving to a closed-lost stage.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: prefer crm_update_deal for moving to closed-lost, and only archive when the record should not have existed. It also notes the required OAuth scope, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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