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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this is a partial or full update, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether stage transitions have constraints (e.g. requiring lost_reason for 'lost'), or what permissions the caller needs. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the semantic gaps rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

Eleven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation — the description explains only a third of the surface. An agent cannot confidently build a correct call (e.g. how to clear or set stage-related fields) from what is written.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only touches stage, details, customer and property; tags, title, archived, lead_source, lost_reason, preferred_times and the fact that request_id is the sole required field go completely undocumented.

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 (update a request) and enumerates the dimensions that can change: stage, details, customer, property. This clearly separates it from reads like requests_get/requests_list and from requests_convert, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as requests_convert for stage progression into a job. The agent must infer that requests_convert exists for conversion and requests_update is for field edits.

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