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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations, especially the partial-update semantics and the explicit statement that won/lost status changes trigger no invoice or project. The annotations already indicate non-destructive intent, and the description deepens that context without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds meaningful operational context: what the tool does, how partial updates behave, and what side effects do not occur.

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 ten parameters, weak schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps. It does not describe the return value, specify valid status values, or clarify ambiguous field formats, so an agent may struggle to construct a correct invocation.

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 20%, and the description does little to compensate for the undocumented parameters. It explains the update behavior generally but does not clarify status values, date formats, value semantics, or how owner_id, contact_id, or lead_id should be referenced.

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 fields on a deal.' It clearly targets deals rather than contacts, leads, or followups, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling update tools.

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 description gives clear operation semantics: only passed fields are changed and omitted fields retain their values. It also clarifies that moving to won/lost is a plain status change with no invoice/project side effects. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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