Create Opportunity

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write operation. The description aligns by saying 'Create a new...' but adds no extra behavioral context such as whether an existing record is modified, what the default pipeline stage is, or that re-invocation creates duplicates. Some credit is given because the main behavior is transparent; however, no value beyond the annotations is provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose schema carries the detailed parameter information.

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 straightforward create tool, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not mention the return value (no output schema exists), what happens if optional fields like stage_id are omitted, or whether the created opportunity is immediately available via list_opportunities. Given the 8-parameter schema, a little more context would improve completeness, but the schema does cover the parameter list.

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 all 8 parameters and their semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, such as rules for combining fields or defaults. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a clearly defined resource ('a new sales pipeline opportunity/deal'). It distinguishes this tool from other create_* tools by naming the business object, and even adds a synonym ('deal') to disambiguate. This is more informative than the title 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?

The description clearly implies the tool is for creating opportunities, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this instead of alternatives such as add_opportunity_note or update_opportunity_stage. The context is implied by the tool name and resource type, but no when-not-to-use or alternative-routing information is provided.

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