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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the mutation safety profile. The description adds the specific fields that can be changed, but does not describe side effects or behavior beyond that. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 states the action and the affected fields with no filler. It earns its place and is easy to parse.

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 update tool with four well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention that only provided fields are updated (idempotent behavior), but the idempotentHint annotation implies this. The tool is simple enough that the description is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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% – every parameter (opportunity_id, status, estimated_value, notes) has a description. The tool description simply restates the field names without adding new meaning, so it does not compensate beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Change' and specifies the resource ('an opportunity') and the fields it affects ('status, estimated value or notes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crm_update_lead, which targets leads instead. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need to modify an opportunity's status, value, or notes, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like crm_update_lead for leads or list_opportunities for listing. There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance, so the agent must infer the scope from the resource name. This is adequate but not explicit.

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