stages_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions required and optional parameters but omits important details such as side effects (e.g., does creating a stage affect deals or pipeline order?), authorization requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios. The range for deal_probability (0-100) is a good addition, but overall transparency is lacking.

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 concise with two main sentences followed by bullet-like examples. It front-loads the purpose and lists required fields. There is no fluff, and the structure is clean. However, it could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description should probably explain the return value (e.g., the created stage object) and mention any post-creation effects (e.g., impact on deals or pipeline order). It also does not reference sibling tools for context. The examples help but are insufficient for full completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds practical examples and clarifies the relationship between is_deal_rot_enabled and days_to_rot, but it does not provide substantial new meaning beyond the schema. The examples are helpful but not critical.

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 'Create a new pipeline stage' with a specific verb and resource. It provides required and optional fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like stages_update or stages_delete, though the name itself implies creation.

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 lists required fields and provides examples of common use cases, giving the agent a sense of when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., updating a stage via stages_update). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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