Create GHL Opportunity

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious action—no mention of side effects, return values, or permissions. Given the presence of annotations, this misses an opportunity to enrich transparency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no redundant details. It is efficiently sized for the core purpose, and every word adds value. This is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is only a single sentence. It does not mention that the tool returns the created opportunity, nor any relationships between required parameters (e.g., pipelineStageId must belong to pipelineId). It is inadequate for a robust write operation with rich schema.

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 around 70-80%, with most parameters having meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself does not elaborate on any parameter, so it adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries most of the parameter semantics.

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 opportunity/deal in a pipeline' uses a specific verb and resource, and the pipeline context distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_update_opportunity, ghl_get_opportunity, and ghl_delete_opportunity. It clearly states what the tool accomplishes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing pipelineId and contactId from other tools (e.g., ghl_list_pipelines, ghl_search_contacts). It is a bare statement of function without contextual usage advice.

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