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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a preview mechanism via confirm, states that the result returns before and after values, and instructs the agent to always report both. This adds important audit and safety behavior for a destructive 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main update actions, followed by audit behavior and the confirm preview instruction. Every sentence adds relevant operational guidance with no filler.

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 destructive update tool with no output schema, the description covers the key call behavior, preview mode, and return shape well. It remains incomplete on several parameter meanings, especially required IDs and pipeline_id, due to low schema coverage.

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 very low at 13%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm, status values, pipeline stage movement, and monetary value, but it does not clarify required parameters like location_id and opportunity_id or the pipeline_id parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update an opportunity by moving its pipeline stage, changing its status, or changing its value. It clearly separates this from sibling tools like highlevel_create_opportunity and highlevel_opportunities, which are create/list operations.

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 a concrete usage instruction: call without confirm first to preview what would change. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as highlevel_create_opportunity, but the update context is clear from the verb and resource.

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