ghl_update_opportunity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that an update occurs, without explaining whether it is a partial or full replacement, whether omitted fields are preserved, or the permission requirements. There is no mention of side effects, errors, or return values, which 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, front-loaded sentence that is easy to scan and contains no redundant wording. It efficiently gives the core verb and examples, though the brevity limits the depth of information conveyed. It earns its place without being verbose.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple related sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It does not address required vs optional fields, how customFields should be structured, or what the response contains. The agent lacks essential context for safe and effective invocation, especially compared to the richer descriptions expected for such a parameter-heavy tool.

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 11% (only pipelineStageId has a description). The description maps 'move to a new stage' to pipelineStageId, 'update value' to monetaryValue, and 'reassign' to assignedTo, but it does not explain name, source, status, pipelineId, or customFields. The 'etc.' hints at more but fails to clarify the semantics of the remaining six 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 uses a clear verb+resource structure: 'Update an opportunity' followed by examples of common actions (move to a new stage, update value, reassign). This distinguishes it from create/get/delete tools, though the presence of a sibling 'ghl_update_opportunity_status' creates some ambiguity about whether status updates are included here. The 'etc.' covers the missing status field, so the purpose is reasonably clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for status-only updates one might use 'ghl_update_opportunity_status', nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or when a partial vs full update is appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the verb and examples.

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