create_opportunity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a notable behavioral trait: 'This endpoint (/action/opportunities/create) may not be officially documented,' alerting the user to potential instability or lack of support. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or return values, which are important for a mutation tool. The unofficial-status disclosure adds value but is not comprehensive.

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 only two sentences, both of which are necessary. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second provides a critical caveat and alternative. There is no redundant or filler content, so it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and an essential alternative recommendation. It could be more complete by mentioning what the endpoint returns or prerequisites like authentication, but the caveat about its unofficial status is crucial for decision-making. Given the schema covers parameter semantics, the description is mostly sufficient for correct usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The note about pipelineStageName refers to the sibling tool, not this one, so it does not clarify parameters here. The schema descriptions themselves are adequate for all 8 parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Create a new sales opportunity in the pipeline.' The verb 'create' and resource 'sales opportunity' are specific, and the note distinguishing this from the official create_form_submission method differentiates it from a key sibling tool.

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 provides an alternative and a when-not-to-use signal: 'The official way to create opportunities is via form submissions with a pipelineStageName using create_form_submission.' This tells the agent to prefer the sibling tool, which is clear usage guidance. It implies that this endpoint should be used only if the official method is unavailable or inappropriate.

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