opportunities_update_opportunity_status

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects, required permissions, or implications of status changes). It merely restates the action without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 concise (three words), which is efficient, but it lacks structure or front-loaded detail. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to convey any usage nuance, making it under-specified rather than elegantly concise.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters including an enum and an optional field, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the effect of changing status, when 'lostReasonId' is required, or any business logic. With no output schema and limited annotation detail, an agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this description.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters. The schema describes 'id' and 'lostReasonId' but the 'status' field lacks a description. With only 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the missing parameter semantics but does not, leaving the agent without clarity on status meaning or when to provide lostReasonId.

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 Status' provides a clear verb and resource, indicating the tool modifies the status field of an opportunity. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic update tools like 'opportunities_update_opportunity', though it doesn't explicitly name the status field or differentiate from other status-related tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'opportunities_update_opportunity' or when not to use it. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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