boond_opportunities_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Create a new opportunity' reveals nothing beyond the mutation implied by the verb itself. It does not explain behavior around invalid companyId references, whether the opportunity is created in a draft state, what side effects occur, or what permissions are required.

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 genuinely short and front-loaded, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate efficiency. A four-word sentence cannot carry adequate guidance for an 8-parameter creation tool, though it is at least a complete, grammatical statement of the core purpose.

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?

Severely incomplete. An 8-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral or workflow context receives a single sentence that omits required fields, reference prerequisites, side effects, and return behavior. An agent has almost nothing beyond the raw schema to work with.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions none of the 8 parameters. The agent gets only parameter names and basic constraints from the schema, with no explanation of semantics such as how probability and value relate, whether companyId/contactId must reference existing entities, or what the status enum values mean in context.

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 pairs a specific verb ('create') with a clear resource ('opportunity'), accurately signaling a creation operation that matches the tool name. It is distinctly a create operation versus the search/get/update opportunity siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many other resource-create siblings (candidates_create, contracts_create, contacts_create), relying entirely on the resource name to do that work.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus boond_opportunities_update or other creation tools, and no mention of workflow context such as needing an existing company or contact before creating an opportunity. An agent is left to infer all usage context from the schema alone.

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