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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value by clarifying partial-update semantics ('Fields not given stay as they are') and naming the underlying PUT endpoint, which is not obtainable from the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation class and the partial-update rule before the endpoint. Every clause earns its place with zero padding.

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 an update tool whose safety profile is fully carried by annotations and whose parameters are fully described in the schema, the description supplies the key missing behavioral fact (partial update, unspecified fields preserved). It omits any auth/permission notes, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 each parameter (note, price, deal_id, broker_id, deal_stage_id) is already documented in the schema. The description only correlates a couple of params with typical intents ('note or price', 'pipeline stage') and does not add syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('change the given fields of a deal') and names the two typical mutations (move stage, update note/price). An agent can distinguish this from propstack_create_deal or propstack_get_contact from the text alone, and the 'WRITE:' prefix signals the operation class immediately.

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 concrete usage context (typical move-to-stage or note/price updates) that tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., create_deal) or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the top tier but is well above implied usage.

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