updateDealAttachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Update a deal attachment' only implies a mutation but does not state whether it overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, or is reversible. 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 a single sentence with minimal waste, but it is under-specified. It is concise but at the cost of conveying essential information, so it doesn't reach the level of a well-crafted, informative description.

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?

This is a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, yet the description does not explain what happens on update, what the response looks like, or any side effects. The description is far too sparse to be considered complete for an AI agent to invoke successfully.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, not even hinting at which fields are most relevant or how they interact.

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 a deal attachment' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (deal attachment), distinguishing it from related tools like updatePersonAttachment. However, it lacks any additional context about what updating entails, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createDealAttachment or getDealAttachment. The description gives no context for appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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