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

Adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: a dry-run/confirm two-phase protocol and the guarantee that before-and-after state is returned for audit ('always report both'). That is exactly the kind of destructive-write context annotations cannot convey on their own.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the mutation surface stated first and the preview instruction second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the before/after return payload. The preview/confirm semantics round out the mutation story; only the identity parameters (location_id, opportunity_id) are left unexplained.

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 25%, so the description must carry more weight: it explains status values, stage/pipeline movement, and value changes. However it is silent on location_id, opportunity_id, and name, leaving half of the 8 parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (update) plus the exact mutations available on the resource: pipeline stage, status, and monetary value. An agent can distinguish it from highlevel_create_opportunity and highlevel_opportunities without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: 'Call without confirm first to see what would change,' which tells the agent to run a preview pass before mutating. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. create vs. list) or state exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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