move-deal-stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It shares the HTTP method (PATCH) and required scope (sales:write), which is useful for authorization. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or expected response, which would be helpful for a write operation.

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 sentence conveys the action, endpoint, and scope efficiently. No redundancy or extraneous detail, every token contributes.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers the endpoint, scope, and action. But without an output schema, it omits what the agent can expect as a return value, creating minor uncertainty about post-invocation handling.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters fully (id and stageId), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Hence the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Move a deal') and the resource ('to another pipeline stage'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from generic update-deal by specifically targeting stage transitions.

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 usage is implied: when you need to move a deal to another stage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using update-deal for other deal modifications.

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