Create RD Station CRM Deal

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

Annotations correctly declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, matching the create operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining automatic name resolution ('names are resolved automatically'), the stage-by-ID-or-name flexibility, and optional fields. It doesn't mention potential side effects like duplicate-creation behavior, but the openWorldHint and non-destructive annotations align with the described behavior.

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 and well-organized: a sentence declaring purpose, a sentence listing optional fields grouped logically, and a concrete usage example. Zero wasted words, all information is useful for tool selection and invocation.

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 moderate complexity (11 params, no output schema), the description covers the creation flow, parameter resolution strategy, and gives a worked example. It could mention return value format (no output schema), but the description is largely complete for a create operation where the caller likely cares about success/failure and the created deal's ID. Annotations cover the behavioral side.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the resolution logic for stage_name (with pipeline_name to disambiguate), user (by email/name), and clarifying relationships between parameters (e.g., contact_name required if contact_email is new). This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 what the tool does: 'Create a deal in a pipeline stage.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (RD Station CRM deal), and location (pipeline stage). It distinguishes from siblings by making clear it's the creation tool (vs rdcrm_update_deal, rdcrm_get_deal, rdcrm_close_deal).

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 a clear usage example ('create a deal for Acme in the Qualification stage worth R$5000') and explains when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for edge cases (e.g., when to update vs create). The example context makes usage reasonably clear.

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