Reopen Deal

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful details: sends empty body, returns to last stage, changes StatusId to 1. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral context.

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?

Three concise sentences. First states purpose, second explains behavior, third gives API details. No redundant phrases, all information is essential and front-loaded.

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 simple reopen action, the description fully covers input, behavior, constraints, and API call. No output schema is needed; the action's effect is clear. Complete for its complexity.

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% with one parameter. The description adds the critical constraint that the deal must be currently won or lost, which goes beyond the schema's 'Deal ID to reopen'. This aids correct selection.

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 ('Reopen'), names the resource ('deal'), and clarifies that it applies only to previously won or lost deals. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ploomes_deals_lose and ploomes_deals_win.

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 explicitly states which deals can be reopened (StatusId=2 or 3) and that it returns the deal to its last stage. It implies when to use: after a deal is won/lost. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but context is clear.

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