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 burden. It does add valuable constraints (required deal name field, probability requirement, example format) and implies a write operation. However, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or how existing data may be affected, which a mutation tool with no annotations should ideally mention.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement and an Args list. Every line provides essential information without unnecessary fluff, making it easy to scan and follow.

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?

The description covers all parameters and key constraints, which is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning how to obtain pipeline_id/stage_id or field IDs, but these are discoverable through sibling tools and not strictly necessary for execution.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains all six parameters, including formats, required values, and an example for fields_values_json. It compensates fully for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies the operation as creating a new deal in Nimble CRM (deals_v2), with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_deal, get_deal, and delete_deal.

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 establishes a clear context for creating a new deal, which is implicitly distinct from update/delete operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or suggest alternative tools such as update_deal for modifying existing deals.

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