rdstation_lose_deal

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burdenable. It states the action 'Mark a deal as lost' but does not disclose side effects such as whether the deal's stage changes permanently, whether associated automations trigger, or whether the operation can be undone. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating workflow step.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the optional inputs are mentioned without redundant detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description still omits important contextual guidance: when to choose this over rdstudio_update_deal or rdstudio_win_deal, whether any side effects occur, and the significance of the deal_lost_reason_id. Without an output schema or annotations, the description alone is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke this correctly in all situations.

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 for the parameters. It only loosely mentions 'a lost reason id and note', which maps to deal_lost_reason_id and note, but it does not clarify formats or relationshipscars. The required deal_id is also not explicitly described, although its purpose is inferable from the tool name.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Mark a deal as lost in RD Station CRM'. It adds optional inputs, which makes the tool's purpose recognizable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like rdstation_update_deal or rdstation_win_deal, but the meaning is still unlikely to be confused.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of rdstation_update_deal or rdstation_win_deal. There is no mention of prerequisites, whether a lost reason is required by certain pipelines, or whether this is the correct path for changing deal status versus other edit operations.

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