create_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies mutation, but the description doesn't note any required permissions, returned representation, whether the deal must be tied to an existing lead, or what happens with optional fields like campaignId/conversationId if omitted. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the action. However, it could arguably do a bit more (like noting leadEmail is the required key) without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the purpose of the many optional fields (notes, value, currency, contactId, campaignId, conversationId) in the context of deal creation, nor what a successful creation returns. The single sentence leaves substantial ambiguity for an 8-parameter creation tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. However, the description adds value only by noting the leadEmail linkage; it doesn't clarify semantic relationships between parameters (e.g., whether contactId is needed for the deal to appear in a contact view, whether value interacts with currency, or whether leadEmail and contactId are alternatives or both required). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new deal linked to a lead email' has a specific verb (create), a resource (deal), and the linkage mechanism (lead email). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_deals, update_deal, and move_deal_stage. However, it doesn't note the required leadEmail parameter or clarify that a deal can't exist standalone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There's no mention of alternatives like update_deal for existing deals, or whether a lead must already exist before creating a deal. The description provides no context on prerequisites or the distinction from sibling deal tools.

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