Создать сделку с контактом

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the default pipeline/status fallback and an explicit consent/prerequisite requirement ('покажите пользователю, что будет записано, и получите согласие'). Return semantics are not covered but annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: core creation semantics first, then the default-stage behavior, then the write-consent warning. Each sentence earns its place and the important operational caveats are front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers the critical gaps — composite creation, default stage routing, and consent. It is slightly short on parameter meaning for the remaining undocumented fields, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 only 27%, so the description must compensate — and it does explain several parameters (name, phone, email, company, note, and the pipeline_id/status_id default behavior). But it omits tags, price, contact_name, and responsible_user_id, leaving a substantial share of the 11 parameters undocumented in both places.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('создаёт сделку') and highlights the composite behavior: deal + contact + company in one request, optionally with a note. This implicitly separates it from crm_update_lead and crm_get_lead, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete operational context: without pipeline_id/status_id the deal lands in the first stage of the main pipeline, and it tells the agent to confirm with the user before writing. It does not, however, name when to prefer this over crm_update_lead or crm_add_note.

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