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

With only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: deletion via archived=true is reversible and hides the deal, archived=false restores it, and a deleted deal can only be changed when also restored. It also explains the won/lost/status distinction and the returned shape.

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 summary is compact and front-loaded with an action list, followed by two crucial semantic clarifications and a one-line returns note. Every sentence earns its place and no schema details are repeated.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the key pitfalls, the reversible deletion model, and the output format. Field-level detail is fully handled by the schema, so an agent has sufficient information to call the tool correctly.

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?

All 13 parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by disambiguating status vs stage, explaining archive/restore behavior, and linking high-level actions to parameter usage. It does not restate syntax, which is appropriately left to the schema.

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 opens with 'Change a deal' and enumerates the concrete operations: rename, move stage, mark won/lost/reopen, change amount, close date, owner, notes, contact/company, and delete/restore. This clearly distinguishes it from read tools like query_deals and creation tools like create_deal.

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 gives clear context and a prerequisite ('Get the id from query_deals') and explicitly clarifies that won/lost are statuses, not stages, preventing a common misuse. It does not explicitly state when to choose create_deal vs update_deal, but the modification scope is clear enough.

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