deals_mark_as_won

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

Discloses automatic effects: updates close date, triggers notifications and automations, moves to won stage. No contradictions with missing annotations. Could mention idempotency or permissions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, workflow tips, common use cases). Efficient use of sentences with no 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 the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, side effects, verification step, and example use cases.

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?

Only one parameter 'id' with schema description; the description adds 'Use deals/get first to verify the deal details' as extra guidance. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 marks a deal as won, updates status to 'won', and moves to appropriate won stage. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deals_update and deals_mark_as_lost.

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?

Provides workflow tips and common use cases, advises using deals/get first for verification, and notes it is more convenient than deals/update. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but covers key context.

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