rdstation_create_deal

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that 'deal' is a raw request body — which hints at passthrough behavior — but it never says what happens on success (returned deal object?), whether it auto-creates related records, or what auth/permission requirements exist.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation, the second defines the single parameter. No filler, and the key clarification that 'deal' is the raw API body is placed directly with the parameter.

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?

This tool has a complex nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description never tells the agent how to fill the fields (e.g., list deal pipelines/stages to obtain valid IDs) or mentions that deal_stage_id must belong to the provided deal_pipeline_id. There is also no mention of what the tool returns. For a creation tool in a 15-tool CRM family, this is insufficient.

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?

The schema treats 'deal' as an unrestricted open object with 0% coverage, so any parameter guidance is valuable. The description provides a concrete example shape ({ name, deal_pipeline_id, deal_stage_id, contact_ids: [...], organization_id }), which gives the agent a real starting point. It stops short of marking which fields are required or describing relationships, but it clearly adds meaning beyond 'an object.'

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?

'Create a deal in RD Station CRM' is a specific verb plus resource. The real object ('deal') distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_contact and create_organization, and 'create' separates it from update_deal, win_deal, and lose_deal at the operation level.

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 gives no guidance on when to select this tool over update_deal, win_deal, or lose_deal, and no explicit scenario such as 'use when a new opportunity is won/prospected.' Usage is only implied by the tool's name.

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