create_deal_full

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds significant behavioral context: it creates multiple entities, auto-searches duplicates, propagates 'origem' to person (once, never changes), and accepts name or ID for pipeline/stage/user. However, it omits details like duplicate handling (skip/merge/error), response format, and idempotency.

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 concise paragraph of 4-5 sentences in Portuguese, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: creation scope, duplicate search, origin propagation, name/ID acceptance, and usage guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (13 params, creates multiple entities, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core purpose and usage but misses key completeness: no explanation of duplicate resolution, no confirmation of what the tool returns or errors, and no permissions or prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% with descriptions for all 13 parameters. The description adds minimal new semantic info; it mentions 'aceita nome ou ID' for pipeline, stage, and user, but schema already includes that. The propagation of 'origem' is behavioral, not semantic. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding 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?

The description clearly states this tool creates a complete deal in one call, including person, organization, deal, and activities. It explicitly says 'PREFERENCIAL para criar novos deals' and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_deal, create_person, etc., by covering multiple entities.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Sempre usar este tool ao registrar um novo lead/oportunidade', giving clear context for when to use. It also implies this is the preferred method over simpler creation tools. However, it lacks explicit exclusion of cases where only a person or deal is needed.

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