opportunities_update_opportunity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Update' and does not disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or limitations. It neither contradicts the annotations nor enriches them.

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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every word is trivial and adds no value. There is no structure or front-loading of important information; it is simply a restatement of the tool's purpose.

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 mutation tool with eight parameters and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no information about what an update entails, what fields are updatable, any constraints, or expected results. An agent would have to rely solely on the input schema and annotations, which are insufficient to guarantee correct usage.

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 only 38%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters. Fields such as name, status, assignedTo, monetaryValue, and pipelineStageId lack explanations in both the schema and the description. The agent is left with no information about what these parameters represent or how they interact.

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 'Update Opportunity' identifies the verb and resource, but it is essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing no additional specificity. It does not mention which fields or aspects of an opportunity can be updated, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like opportunities_update_opportunity_status, which is a more focused update operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description offers no help to an agent deciding between this and opportunities_update_opportunity_status or other related utilities.

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