update_tracked_opportunityChange or disable a tracked opportunity in the connected account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| notice_id | Yes | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| alert_cadence | No | ||
| pursuit_state | No | ||
| delivery_channels | No | ||
| source_profile_id | No | ||
| next_action_due_at | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, it adds only the word 'disable' without explaining what that entails (e.g., whether it stops alerts entirely). No detail on partial-update behavior or side effects.
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 a single sentence that is direct and free of filler. It earns its place by stating the core action and scope in minimal words.
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?
Despite having 9 parameters, enums, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It doesn't explain how to identify the tracked opportunity, what fields are updateable, or what 'disable' means operationally. The bare-bones wording leaves critical gaps for a mutation tool of this complexity.
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%, and the tool description provides no parameter information whatsoever. The agent gets no hints about what notice_id, pursuit_state, alert_cadence, or the other fields mean, forcing reliance on raw schema names alone.
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 uses a specific verb ('Change or disable') and identifies the resource ('tracked opportunity') and scope ('in the connected account'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like track_opportunity (create) and update_saved_search (different resource).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as track_opportunity for creating or update_saved_search for updating saved searches. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear boundaries (e.g., get_award vs search_awards, get_business_profile vs get_vendor). Some overlap exists in pairs like find_recompetes/find_recompetes_for_business and search_opportunities/search_opportunities_for_business, though the latter are differentiated by profile context.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, search_, update_, watch_, save_, etc.) with no stylistic deviations. Naming is highly predictable across the entire set.
At 39 tools, the surface is excessively large. While the domain is broad, many tools could be combined or parameterized (e.g., get_business_awards and get_vendor_awards, multiple search variants). This creates overhead for agents and dilutes focus.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: opportunity/award searching and retrieval, business profile updates, saved searches, watches, exclusions, and reference data. Minor gaps such as award amendments or more granular exclusion handling exist, but the surface is fundamentally complete.