Close RD Station CRM Deal (Won/Lost)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying mutation without destruction. The description adds the context that lost_reason names are resolved against account-configured reasons, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to open pipeline stages, whether closing is irreversible, or what the closed deal's resulting state looks like. With no destructiveHint and reasonable annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact—two sentences covering purpose and usage, plus example phrases. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the lost-reason workflow. Slight inefficiency exists in the redundant phrasing around lost_reason/lost_reason_id, which could be tightened, but overall it earns its space.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential custom logic (lost-reason resolution and optional note). It handles the two dynamic params well. However, it doesn't explain what result the tool returns (e.g., closed deal object, confirmation), what validation occurs on lost_reason names, or preconditions like whether the deal must be in an open state to be closed.

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 covers all 5 parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between lost_reason (by name) and lost_reason_id (by ID), and how names are resolved. It also ties the note parameter to why the deal was lost. This exceeds the baseline by explaining semantics beyond simple field labels.

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 action: 'Mark a deal as won or lost.' It identifies the specific verb+resource (close/update deal status) and distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like rdcrm_update_deal and rdcrm_create_deal by focusing on the win/loss outcome state. The field guidance for lost deals adds specificity.

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 provides concrete example phrases ('mark the Acme deal as won', 'we lost the Beta deal because of price') that signal when to invoke this tool. It also explains the lost-reason resolution mechanics (names vs IDs against account-configured reasons). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools (e.g., rdcrm_update_deal) for other deal modifications.

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