add_pipeline_lost_reason

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies mutation via 'Add' but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior, which is insufficient for a write operation.

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?

Extremely concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a minimal Args list. No fluff, and the action is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-param tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters. However, it omits usage context and behavioral details beyond the basic action. With no annotations, more context would be expected, but it is minimally adequate.

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 0% (only titles 'Reason' and 'Pipeline Id'). The description adds meaningful semantics: 'pipeline_id: The Nimble pipeline ID' and 'reason: Reason description', fully compensating for the schema gaps.

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?

Description clearly states 'Add a new lost-reason option to a pipeline' – a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('lost-reason option'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention lost reasons.

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 on when to use versus alternatives. It does not reference prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools like create_deal_pipeline or archive_pipeline_stage.

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