Update GoHighLevel Opportunity Status

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical context: it's a write operation and requires caution with live data. This goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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 of 13 words, front-loading the purpose and then adding a critical usage warning. No wasted 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?

For a simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, caution, and endpoint. It could mention what happens on success/failure, but this is not critical given the straightforward nature.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, though it does provide endpoint context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it updates opportunity status, specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, and distinguishes from siblings like ghl_update_opportunity by focusing on status alone. The verb 'Update' and resource 'opportunity status' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly warns against running on live data without approval, which is strong guidance. However, it does not mention alternative tools for similar operations (e.g., ghl_update_opportunity for other fields), leaving some ambiguity about when exactly to use this tool versus others.

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