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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: partial-update semantics and the exclusion of state transitions (which would otherwise be the most likely accidental mutation). It still doesn't state permission requirements or whether updates are reversible, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences: purpose with field list, then the partial-update rule, then the exclusion rule plus API reference. Each sentence carries distinct information and the most important constraint (patch semantics) is front-loaded.

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 22-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, patch behavior, and exclusions well. It is missing validation/permission notes and a pointer to where state changes are performed, which would complete the picture, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters by domain (subject, customer, venue, dates, reference, instructions, tags, custom fields), which is mildly helpful for orientation but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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) and resource (opportunity header fields) and enumerates exactly which fields are editable: subject, customer, venue, dates, reference, instructions, tags, custom fields. It also explicitly distinguishes scope from state changes and maps to the underlying API operation (PUT /opportunities/{id}). An agent can immediately distinguish this from current_rms_create_opportunity or current_rms_get_opportunity.

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?

Explicitly states patch semantics ('Only the fields you pass are sent') and rules out state transitions ('State changes ... are deliberately not available'), which is strong when-not guidance. However, it does not name which sibling tool to use for those state changes, leaving the agent to search for an alternative.

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