create_deal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states that a new deal is created and that contact/company linking is part of the operation, but it omits details such as the return format, permission requirements, validation behavior for linked entities, and what happens on failure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the operation, platform, resource, and key fields with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward create operation: it names the action and the involved fields, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks return-value information and any mention of prerequisites or failure conditions, which are useful for robust agent follow-up.

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 schema already documents every parameter with types and defaults. The description's mention of title, amount, stage, and linked contact/company restates schema content without adding new semantic nuance.

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 ('Create') and resource ('CRM deal in Bitrix24'), and enumerates the key distinguishing fields: title, amount, stage, and linked contact/company. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_contact, create_task, list_deals, and update_deal.

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 phrase 'Create a new CRM deal' implies the intended use case — creating a new deal rather than listing or updating one. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites such as the need for existing contacts or companies to link.

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