teamleader_projects_remove_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. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or whether the deal is deleted or merely unlinked. Given the mutation nature, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 is easy to read and front-loaded. It avoids redundancy, but the extreme brevity leaves out critical details; however, for a simple action, it is appropriately concise.

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 simple operation and only two parameters, the description is incomplete because it does not explain which parameter is which or provide any context about nextgen projects. The output schema is absent, but parameter clarity and behavioral context are still missing, making the tool under-specified.

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 two required parameters (id and deal_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to (likely the project ID) or clarify the relationship between the two parameters. The agent is left to guess parameter meanings.

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 the specific verb 'ontkoppel' (unlink) with the resource 'deal van een nextgen-project', clearly stating the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_quotation and add_deal, as it specifically refers to removing a deal from a project.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teamleader_projects_remove_quotation or teamleader_projects_add_deal. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where this tool is applicable.

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