Create Deal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write semantics and non-idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds only the phaseId acquisition prerequisite; it says nothing about required permissions, whether a returned deal ID is needed for follow-up calls, or what happens with invalid phase/contact IDs.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the prerequisite. The leading 'Create Deal.' line merely echoes the title and could be dropped without losing 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?

For a mutation tool with a nested body object, the description covers the critical external dependency but omits anything about the response (there is no output schema, so whether an ID is returned matters for chaining) and about failure modes. Adequate to call correctly, thin for using the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested body schema already documents name, phaseId, contactId, closingDate, closingVolume, and the custom-property convention. The description still adds real value by telling the agent where phaseId must come from (list_pipelines), which the schema does not state.

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 ('Creates a new deal') plus the two anchoring entities (contact and phase), which is far more than restating the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with update_deal or the various list/search_deals siblings, so an agent must infer the create-vs-read/update split from the names alone.

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?

Gives a concrete ordering prerequisite: 'Get a `phaseId` from `list_pipelines` first,' naming the sibling tool that supplies the dependency. It gives no exclusions (e.g. when to use upsert_contact_by_email-style flows, or whether duplicate deals per contact are permitted), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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