teamleader_projects_add_deal

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining whether it modifies the project or deal, if it is idempotent, what happens if the deal is already linked, or what response is returned. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 short sentence with no redundant information or filler. It is appropriately terse, though it could be enriched with a bit more detail without losing efficiency.

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 simple linking operation with 2 plain string parameters and no output schema, the description gives only the bare action. It omits return value, side effects, and any conditions. Given no annotations, this is not complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 has zero description coverage, and the description adds no parameter clarification. It implies deal_id refers to a deal and id likely to a project, but does not explicitly state this mapping or any constraints. The field names provide some self-documentation, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Koppel' = link) and clearly identifies the action: linking a deal to a nextgen-project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_deal or add_quotation. The only minor ambiguity is which parameter is the project, but the schema's field names partially resolve this.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_deal, add_quotation), nor any prerequisites like an existing project or deal. It gives zero guidance on selection or sequencing.

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