bitrix_update_deal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that confirm=true is required, which is already visible in the schema. It does not explain whether unspecified fields are preserved, what permissions are needed, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and allowed fields are front-loaded, and the mandatory confirm requirement is stated clearly. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description plus schema covers the essential purpose and parameters, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema it lacks usage guidance and behavioral side effects. A more complete definition would mention when to use this vs. other deal tools and what happens after the update.

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 67%, so the schema already documents dealId and confirm. The description adds value by explicitly naming the acceptable fields (TITLE, COMMENTS, OPPORTUNITY, CURRENCY_ID), clarifying that the nested fields object is intentionally limited to these, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 ('Изменить' - modify) with a clear resource ('сделки' - deal) and enumerates the exact fields allowed: TITLE, COMMENTS, OPPORTUNITY, CURRENCY_ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling deal tools like bitrix_move_deal_stage or bitrix_add_deal_comment.

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 'ограниченный набор полей' implies this tool is only for certain fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bitrix_update_task, bitrix_move_deal_stage, or bitrix_create_deal. No concrete when/when-not guidance is provided.

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