conduyt_update_deal_working_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the hard prerequisite (intakeDeals enabled with pipelineId and stageId), a blocking side effect (a new form/webhook/line cannot go live without a pipeline), and reversibility ('Switchable later'). It does not say what happens to already-created deal cards or existing records when the mode is switched, which is the key behavioral gap for a mode toggle.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then per-mode consequences, then preconditions and default. Dense but every sentence carries information; the em-dash asides make it slightly harder to scan than necessary.

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?

A one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool needs the description to cover preconditions, effects and defaults, and it does. Remaining gaps are what happens to existing deals on switch and any permission requirement.

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% and the enum description already says 'cards on every inbound' vs 'the contact is the opportunity', so the baseline is 3. The description adds real operational meaning beyond the schema — the pipeline-mode prerequisites and the consequence that a new form/webhook/line cannot go live — which helps an agent choose the value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set how this tenant works leads (Lifecycle v3)') and then defines the two mutually exclusive modes operationally. An agent can tell this apart from conduyt_update_intake_deals or conduyt_get_lifecycle_settings from the text alone.

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?

Gives clear selection conditions for each mode ('pipeline' for every inbound contact in an intake pipeline; 'status' for small shops) plus a prerequisite ordering ('conduyt_update_intake_deals first') and the default for new tenants. It does not name a sibling for reading the current mode before switching, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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