opportunities_upsert_opportunity

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but the description adds nothing beyond the single word 'Upsert'. It does not disclose whether it updates existing opportunities when an id is supplied, how followers are handled, or any side effects. This leaves the agent fully reliant on the schema and annotations with no additional context.

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?

At only two words, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any structure (e.g., front-loaded key constraints or context) and fails to convey the operation's complexity, making it unhelpful for an agent.

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 12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is drastically incomplete. It omits essential information like the expected behavior when id is omitted, the meaning of followersActionType, and return values, leaving the agent to guess.

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 67%, meaning several parameters lack descriptions (e.g., assignedTo, monetaryValue, pipelineStageId). The description does not compensate for these gaps at all, nor does it clarify the interaction between required fields like followers and followersActionType. It adds no value beyond the schema.

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 states the verb 'Upsert' and the resource 'Opportunity', which is a specific action that implies create-or-update semantics. However, it does not explain what 'upsert' means in this context or how it differs from the sibling create/update tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the term.

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 the explicit create or update tools. With siblings like opportunities_create_opportunity and opportunities_update_opportunity, the description provides no criteria (e.g., use if id is present) to route the agent correctly.

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