ghl_update_opportunity_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and allowed statuses but does not disclose potential side effects, whether other fields are preserved, or any validation rules. It simply restates the schema-defined enum, adding little beyond that.

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 with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical status list is a useful, compact addition.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description conveys the core action and status values. However, it lacks guidance on return behavior, success criteria, or how this differs from the sibling update tool. It is adequate but not rich.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'opportunityId' or 'status' parameters. It mentions statuses in parentheses but relies on the parameter names to convey meaning. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('update') and resource ('status of an opportunity'), clearly limiting scope with 'only the status'. It also lists the valid statuses, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_update_opportunity which likely update multiple fields.

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 'only the status' implies a focused use case, suggesting an alternative to a broader update tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like ghl_update_opportunity or state when not to use it, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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