create-deal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the HTTP method (POST) and the required auth scope (sales:write), but it says nothing about side effects, failure modes, validation behavior, or what happens with unmentioned optional fields.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action, includes the endpoint, flags a required parameter, and states the permission scope. Every element earns its place with zero filler.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not clarify field semantics (e.g., value units, currency), relationships between parameters, or what the API returns on success. More context is needed to call this reliably.

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 only 44%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only restates that pipelineId is required (already in the schema) and adds no meaning for value, stageId, personId, lostReason, ownerUserId, organizationId, or expectedCloseDate.

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 and resource: 'Create a sales deal'. The HTTP endpoint is included for precision, and the name 'create-deal' clearly distinguishes it from update-deal, list-deals, and move-deal-stage among siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and resource pairing: this is the tool to create a deal, as opposed to update-deal or list-deals. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, prerequisites like existing pipelines or owners, or when not to use it.

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