Create deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write but says nothing about required permissions, what happens if companyId is invalid or a duplicate deal exists, whether contactId is validated against the company, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the optional linkage is appended as a qualifier. Nothing is redundant.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits required-field expectations, the stage default, the amountCents unit, and any notion of the returned deal.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates partially: it identifies companyId and the optional nature of contactId, and implies name. It says nothing about stage or amountCents, leaving two of five parameters undocumented in text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new deal") and adds the scoping detail that a deal belongs to a company and may optionally link a contact. It is clearly distinguishable from read siblings like get_deal/list_deals, though it never contrasts itself with the other deal mutator, update_deal_stage.

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 implies you call it when you want a new deal, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the company must already exist), and never names an alternative such as update_deal_stage for existing deals.

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