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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that omitted fields remain unchanged, which is a useful hint, but does not disclose response format, validation rules, idempotency, or what happens if invalid data is provided. The mutation nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) with no filler content. It front-loads the main action ('Patch a deal') and adds a brief usage instruction. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It provides no information about return values, error behavior, required fields (beyond schema), or any edge cases. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description offers no parameter explanations whatsoever. It does not clarify the format or meaning of fields like closeAt, valueCents, or stageId, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types, which may be ambiguous (e.g., valueCents units).

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 operation ('Patch a deal') and it is distinct from sibling tools like deals_create or deals_delete. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource type beyond 'deal' or differentiate from the specific deals_move_stage tool, but the verb 'patch' implies a partial update, which is reasonably clear.

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 only usage hint is 'Only include fields to change,' which implies a partial update pattern but provides no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like deals_move_stage for stage changes. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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