Update RD Station CRM Deal

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

Annotations only declare non-readOnly (mutation) and non-destructive, which the description aligns with by describing mutations. The description adds useful operational context like stage-by-ID-or-name flexibility and pause/resume semantics. With good annotation coverage, the burden is lower, and the description adds genuine context beyond annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences plus a two-line usage block. Every sentence earns its place: scope enumeration, when-to-use, and when-not-to. Zero filler or redundancy.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and non-readOnly annotation, the description covers the main behavior patterns well. It doesn't explain return values, but no output schema exists and the tool is a standard update that likely returns the deal or success. Slightly more could be said about what happens on invalid interactions, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 per rubric baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the fluidity between stage_id and stage_name (with pipeline_name to disambiguate), and the hold boolean semantics (true pauses, false resumes), plus prediction_date explicit format (YYYY-MM-DD). This supplements the schema meaningfully.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Update a deal' with specific enumerations of what can be updated (stage, owner, name, rating, expected close date, pause/resume). Strongly distinguishes from sibling rdcrm_close_deal which handles won/lost outcomes, and from create/get which handle other lifecycle stages.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use examples ('move the Acme deal to Negotiation', 'assign this deal to Maria') and an explicit don't-use exclusion that names the alternative tool (rdcrm_close_deal for win/loss). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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