updateDeal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only restates the update action and gives parameter naming tips; it does not mention whether updates are partial or full, permission requirements, or the return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement. Every word earns its place, and the naming hints are directly actionable, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description leaves out behavioral details like return value and mutation semantics. However, the schema is thorough for parameters, and the naming correction adds important context. The tool is moderately complex, so a bit more detail on expected behavior would improve completeness, but it is minimally sufficient.

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 schema already documents all 16 parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable extra guidance by explicitly correcting common naming mistakes ('price' not 'value', 'peopleIds' not 'personId'), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 a deal' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like createDeal and getDeal. The additional naming hints do not obscure the core purpose.

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 phrase 'Update a deal' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the name itself differentiates from related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the CRUD naming makes this largely unnecessary.

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