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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical context: that won/lost status is derived from the stage, not set directly, and that writes are shared across all callers in the AIsa workspace with no isolation. This goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the main action and fields, then adds critical behavioral notes. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers main purpose, partial update semantics, stage-derived won/lost logic, and the shared-workspace side effect. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Adequate for the tool's 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description reinforces which fields are typically updated (amount, close date, stage, owner) and notes 'send only what changes,' but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. The behavior around stage is mentioned, but the specific parameter `opportunity_stage_id` is already described as 'Stage ID'.

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?

Clearly states 'Update one deal by its Apollo id' with a specific resource and identifier. Lists the updatable fields (amount, close date, stage, owner) and notes partial updates. Distinguishes from sibling patch tools by targeting opportunities specifically.

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 implies usage for updating existing opportunities and emphasizes sending only changed fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the context is clear. It also explains when stage changes are meaningful (closed stages) and warns about shared workspace, which helps decide when to use.

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