pipeline_stages_upsert

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that probability is validated (0-100), outcome flags terminal status via deals_mark, and that the stage-to-status derivation is fixed. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the action. It includes a §6b reference that may be opaque but is domain-specific. No redundant filler; efficient.

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 an upsert with 8 params and no output schema, the description covers the main mechanics but lacks return-value expectations, error handling, and explicit mention of workspaceId/pipelineId. It is adequate for a knowledgeable user but incomplete for an autonomous agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers name, sort, probability, outcome, and stageId, but omits workspaceId, pipelineId, and idempotencyKey. While the first two are required and inferable, idempotencyKey is entirely unexplained, and sort is only listed without meaning.

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 or edits a pipeline stage, listing the key fields (name, sort, probability, outcome) and explaining the patch/append behavior via stageId. It differentiates from related tools like pipelines_upsert (for pipelines) and deals_mark (which consumes the outcome flag).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: pass stageId to patch, omit to append, and notes that probability is validated here as the only place defaults enter. It implies this is the tool for stage management but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions; still, the context is clear enough.

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