Link a deal to a project by providing the project ID and deal ID. Streamline CRM project management by associating relevant deals directly.
Link a deal to a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The project ID | |
| deal_id | Yes | The deal ID to link |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a link (a mutation), but doesn't disclose whether it's idempotent, whether it overwrites existing links, what happens if the deal is already linked, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single sentence with no waste. The action and both resources are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple linking operation.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't mention return behavior, error conditions, or idempotency. The simple parameter set and clear action keep it from being a 1, but an agent would need more context to invoke it confidently.
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 schema already documents both parameters ('The project ID' and 'The deal ID to link'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Link a deal to a project' clearly states the action (link) and the two resources involved (deal, project). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like teamleader_remove_project_deal, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project must exist, deal must exist) or when linking is appropriate. The sibling list includes teamleader_remove_project_deal, but the description doesn't contrast with it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.