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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new context: the required role ('Editor or above') and the partial-update contract ('Only what you pass changes'). It does not mention what is returned or any side effects on related records, but the auth requirement is a meaningful addition beyond structured data.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the mutation semantics and permission requirement are front-loaded. The opening sentence is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb statement, which slightly weakens the lead, but nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers role requirements and partial-update behavior, but leaves gaps: no mention of what a successful call returns, no note on whether amount changes affect currency, and no routing guidance versus move_deal/update_lead. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 60%, and the schemas already describe deal_id, workspace_id, and the amount-null semantics. The description adds real meaning for 'title' ('What the client buys'), which the schema leaves blank, but says nothing about the 'currency' enum or how amount/currency interact, so it only partly compensates.

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 identifies the resource ('a deal') and the two main editable fields ('title', 'amount'), and 'Only what you pass changes' hints at a partial update. However, it never states a clear verb like 'update' or 'change', and it offers no differentiation from siblings such as dosai_create_deal, dosai_move_deal, or dosai_update_lead, so the agent must infer scope from the title alone.

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?

'Editor or above' gives a permission prerequisite and 'Only what you pass changes' clarifies partial-update behavior. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over dosai_move_deal (stage changes) or dosai_update_lead (lead fields), which is exactly the ambiguity an agent faces with this sibling set.

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