Move a deal to another kanban stage

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

Annotations indicate it's neither read-only nor destructive, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it moves a deal. It mentions optional card positioning but omits side effects (e.g., activity logging, automation triggers, return value). The description does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences: first describes the action and optional parameters, second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no superfluous text.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisites, and optional parameters. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the updated deal object). This omission reduces completeness for a mutation tool.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds context like 'kanban column' and '0-based card position,' aligning with the schema. However, it doesn't provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already offers, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Move', the resource 'deal', and the context 'to a different pipeline stage (kanban column)'. It also mentions optional parameters for cross-pipeline moves and position, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rootr_crm_update or rootr_crm_upsert_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 prerequisite: 'Call rootr_crm_get first to learn the target stageId/pipelineId.' While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool or alternative tools, the prerequisite gives practical guidance. The tool's specific action (move deal) differentiates it from update tools.

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