deals_move_to_stage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that moving stages may trigger automations in Pipedrive, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not detail authorization requirements or reversibility, but the automations warning adds meaningful context.

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 concise with a clear front-loaded purpose statement, followed by bullet-pointed workflow tips and use cases. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, side effects, and examples. It lacks explicit return value description, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value through workflow tips (e.g., stage must be in same pipeline) and example use cases showing typical stage_id values (5 and 10). This aids understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool moves a deal to a different stage in the pipeline and distinguishes it from deals_update by advising 'Use this instead of deals/update when only changing stages.' The verb 'Move' and resource 'deal stage' are specific and clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('only changing stages') and when-not-to (use deals/update for other changes). It includes workflow tips: using pipelines/list to get stages, warning about automations, and stage must be in same pipeline or specify pipeline_id.

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