Update GoHighLevel Opportunity

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

Description correctly labels as 'Write operation,' matching annotations. Adds caution about live data, but does not elaborate on partial updates, required permissions, or side effects beyond what annotations already provide.

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?

Two precise sentences. First states the core action, second provides a critical usage warning. No unnecessary words.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, partial update behavior, or relationship to pipelines/stages. Sibling tools include many opportunity-related actions, yet this description offers no comparison.

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?

With only 27% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain which fields are updatable or how the 'extra' field behaves. The schema itself has minimal descriptions for most 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?

Clearly states updating an opportunity with the specific HTTP method and resource path. Distinguishes from siblings like ghl_create_opportunity, ghl_get_opportunity, and ghl_delete_opportunity.

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?

Provides a clear caution about not running against live data without approval. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ghl_update_opportunity_status or partial update considerations.

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