update_deal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully: it discloses that a full deal object must be supplied (implying overwrite rather than partial patch), states the permission prerequisites (Sales module + write scope), and recommends a read-then-confirm workflow. It omits behavior on unmapped fields and does not describe the response, though no output schema exists to lean on.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then usage, then permissions/workflow. Every sentence contributes, though the required-field enumeration and the changeable-field list brush against redundancy.

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 a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, this is fairly complete: purpose, required fields, overwrite semantics, prerequisites, and a safe workflow are all covered. It leaves out error/partial-update behavior but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage and a nested deal object, the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the 'full deal object' contract, restates the three required subfields, and points at the fields worth changing (value, status, close date, probability). The required-field list partially duplicates the schema's required array, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 an existing CRM deal') that separates it from get_deal, create_deal, and search_deals. It also scopes the mutation ('change value, status, close date, or probability'), implicitly distinguishing it from move_deal_stage. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context ('change value, status, close date, or probability') and a clear workflow prerequisite: read the deal first via get_deal, then confirm changes. It names get_deal as the read alternative but offers no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion conditions.

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