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

The CRM read-only carve-out is genuinely new behavioral context not present in the annotations. However, the idempotency sentence merely restates idempotentHint=true, and for a destructiveHint=true mutation the description never says whether this is a partial patch (omitted fields preserved) or a full replace, nor what metadata/currency side effects occur when amount changes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what can be edited, then the failure condition, then the idempotency guarantee. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 mutation over a 16-property nested body with no output schema, the definition covers intent and the main restriction but leaves out partial-update semantics, response shape, and several editable fields. Enough to attempt the call correctly, not enough to predict its effects on existing data.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps most body fields (name, deal_type, status, amount_native, close dates, owner_name, win/loss reasons, archived) but omits currency, the win/loss subreasons and notes, and loss_follow_up_date. It adds no constraints such as whether currency must accompany amount_native or which reasons apply to which status.

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?

Names a specific verb (edits) and resource (deal) and enumerates the mutable surfaces: name, type, status, amount, dates, owner, outcome reasons, plus archive/restore. That scope makes it distinguishable from createDeal, moveDeal and updateDealAttribution without those being named explicitly. It stops short of a 5 only because the sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 a real usage constraint: deals synced from a CRM are read-only except outcome reasons on closed deals, which tells the agent when this call will fail. There is no explicit routing to alternatives (moveDeal for stage changes, updateDealAttribution for attribution), so an agent still has to infer which updater to pick.

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