Update deal stage

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 says 'move' (a mutation) but discloses nothing about reversibility, whether stage transitions are validated or restricted, whether side effects occur (timestamps, activity logs, webhooks), or permission requirements. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the valid values. Nothing is padded. The stage enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, which slightly dilutes the efficiency, but the structure is otherwise clean.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is thin. It omits error/validation behavior, side effects, required permissions, and what the caller gets back — all things an agent needs to invoke this correctly alongside siblings like get_deal or get_pipeline_summary.

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 both parameters. It restates the stage enum values already present in the schema (redundant, not additive) and says nothing about dealId — no indication of format, source, or whether it must reference an existing deal. Only one of two parameters gains any description, and that one duplicates structured data.

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+resource+scope: 'Move a deal to a new pipeline stage.' An agent can immediately tell this mutates a deal's stage rather than reading or creating deals. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as create_deal or log_activity, but the resource/verb pairing makes the distinction obvious.

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 implied by the tool name and the enumerated stage list — an agent infers this is the tool for transitioning deals through the pipeline. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., deal must exist, valid transitions), and no named alternative for related operations.

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