create_deal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: many Freshsales instances reject creation unless cf_* custom fields are supplied, with a pointer to list_field_choices for verification. It omits permissions/auth requirements, error shapes, and what a successful response contains, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two sentences, the core action first and the failure-avoidance caveat second, with zero filler. The NOTE earns its length because it prevents a rejected call.

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 12-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main hidden pitfall (required custom fields) and names the helper tool for discovery. Return values are not explained, but nothing in the environment provides them either, so the remaining gap is modest.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value for the highest-risk parameter: custom_field is where required cf_* values must go, and the instance-dependency of those requirements is stated. It adds nothing for the other dozen parameters, but schema descriptions already cover most of them.

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 first sentence is a precise verb+resource statement ('Create a new deal') that is unambiguous against siblings such as update_deal or create_lead, whose names already carry their own scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself in prose from adjacent creators, but the operation itself is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent is told to probe list_field_choices before creating and to route required custom fields through custom_field, which is operational prerequisite guidance rather than when/when-not direction. There is no mention of alternatives (e.g. update_deal for existing deals) or conditions under which this call should be preferred.

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