ghl_upsert_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 behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a write operation and adds the matching behavior by contact and pipeline, which hints at an upsert flow. However, it does not disclose what happens on update (e.g., partial vs. full field overwrite), the return value, or error conditions. This is adequate but leaves significant behavior undocumented.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no verbose or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-line purpose statement, though other dimensions highlight necessary additions.

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's complexity (7 parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the upsert behavior in detail (e.g., what identifies an existing opportunity), what the tool returns, or prerequisites beyond the matching fields. The description is a minimal outline that leaves substantial gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for contact and pipeline parameters by stating they are the matching criteria. It provides no explanation for name, status, assignedTo, monetaryValue, or pipelineStageId, and doesn't clarify required vs. optional behavior for create vs. update. This is minimal compensation for a 7-parameter 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 phrase "Create or update" for the opportunity resource and adds "matched by contact and pipeline" to specify the resource's identity criteria. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_create_opportunity, ghl_update_opportunity, and ghl_update_opportunity_status, which have narrower or different purposes.

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 description implies when to use the tool: whenever you need to create or update an opportunity based on a contact and pipeline match. This provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., 'for status-only changes, use update_opportunity_status'). The presence of a match criterion offers practical guidance for when the tool applies.

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