move_deal_stage

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. It implies this is a mutating action (drag-and-drop move) but doesn't state side effects, whether the prior stage is logged/tracked, reversibility, or validation behavior on invalid stage transitions (e.g., jumping from 'new' to 'closed'). Zero annotation coverage makes this a notable 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?

A single, efficient sentence with zero waste. The drag-and-drop parenthetical instantly orients the agent while keeping prose minimal.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return values/behavior (e.g., does it return the updated deal, a success status, error cases?), and whether stage transitions are constrained by pipeline ordering. It also fails to disambiguate from update_deal. Sibling context plus missing annotations leaves significant gaps for a state-changing operation.

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 100%, so both dealId and newStage are well-documented in the schema against the enum values. The description's stage list isn't repeated, but the schema already enumerates all valid target stages. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and adds the enum constraint.

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 states the verb (move), resource (deal), and action (to a new pipeline stage), with an accessible drag-and-drop analogy. It distinguishes from siblings like list_deals and update_deal by focusing on stage transitions specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 this vs. update_deal or get_pipeline, and no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether the deal must exist, whether stage ordering is validated). The description gives context-free purpose but no usage direction for the agent.

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