Update an existing CRM opportunity by sending only the fields you want to change, such as stage, value, priority, or expected close date.
Atualiza uma oportunidade existente (envie apenas os campos a alterar).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID da oportunidade | |
| notes | No | ||
| stage | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| lossReason | No | ||
| probability | No | ||
| expectedCloseDate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, and it discloses only that the update is partial. It says nothing about permissions, side effects of moving stage to won/lost, whether lossReason becomes required, or what happens when the id does not exist.
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?
A single short sentence with the partial-update caveat placed immediately after the action, so nothing is buried. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved by omitting detail rather than by tight phrasing of complete information.
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?
With nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, the description is too thin for the complexity of the tool. An agent cannot tell from it how fields interact, what validation applies, or what a successful update returns.
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 only 11% — just the id field is documented. Eight parameters, including value, probability, expectedCloseDate, lossReason and notes, have no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate by explaining their meaning or constraints (e.g. the lossReason/stage=lost relationship).
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Atualiza uma oportunidade existente"), which clearly distinguishes it from the create/list/get/delete/move opportunity siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling to disambiguate against, but the core purpose is 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 parenthetical "envie apenas os campos a alterar" is a real usage instruction, telling the agent this is a partial update rather than a full replace. However, it gives no guidance on the notable overlap with novacrm_move_opportunity, which appears to also change stage, nor any prerequisites for when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.