update_deal

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds helpful context like status options and fields usage, but does not elaborate on update behavior (e.g., partial vs full overwrite).

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 three sentences, each delivering critical information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently provides prerequisites and field guidance.

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?

While the description gives key guidance for using the tool and an output schema exists, it lacks details on update semantics (e.g., whether unspecified fields are cleared or retained). For a destructive mutation tool, this gap leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains id, status, and fields, but omits 7 other parameters (name, phone, email, value, stage_id, user_id, origin_id) which are self-explanatory but not annotated. The description fails to fully cover all parameters.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing deal' and provides guidance on finding the deal ID, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_deal or remove_deal by focusing on modification.

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 explicitly advises using list_deals or get_deal to find the deal ID and list_fields to discover field keys, providing clear prerequisites. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for different tasks.

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