create_opportunity

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: pipeline is inferred from milestone, ownerId defaults to API token owner and cannot be cleared via this connector, and opportunities do not inherit owner from the linked party, addressing potential misconceptions.

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 brief yet comprehensive, with each sentence providing unique value. It front-loads the main purpose and required fields, avoiding redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, nested object, no output schema), the description covers essential usage: required fields, value constraints, discoverability prerequisites, ownerId quirks, and multi-party workflow, making it complete for correct invocation.

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?

Description adds meaning beyond the input schema for multiple parameters: explains milestoneId's role in determining pipeline, value's amount/currency dependency with ISO format, expectedCloseOn format, and ownerId's default behavior and limitations, compensating for 50% schema coverage.

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 tool creates an opportunity linked to a party, specifying required fields (partyId, milestoneId) and optional value. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_additional_party, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: requires partyId and milestoneId, instructs to discover milestoneIds via list_pipelines/list_milestones, explains currency requirement when amount is set, and advises using add_additional_party for multi-party deals, covering pre- and post-creation steps.

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