updateDealCustomField

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single phrase "Update" implies mutation but offers nothing about side effects, validation behavior, idempotency, required permissions, or response format. This is a significant transparency 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 no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification; still, for what it does say, it earns its place.

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 that this is an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, a one-line description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about which fields are updatable, whether partial updates are supported, return behavior, and any caveats, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 only 38%, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't mention the required id, the meaning of the boolean flags, or the choices array, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's limited coverage.

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 custom field" clearly identifies the verb (update) and the resource (deal custom field), which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic custom field operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling tool 'updateCustomField'.

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 like createDealCustomField or updateCustomField. There is no context about prerequisites, expected usage scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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