Updates an existing proposal's details and status, such as draft, sent, viewed, approved, or rejected, so sales records stay current.
Atualiza uma proposta existente, incluindo mudança de status (ex: sent, approved, rejected).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID da proposta | |
| items | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | Novo status da proposta | |
| discount | No | ||
| validUntil | No | ||
| paymentTerms | 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 burden. It says the tool mutates an existing proposal but says nothing about partial-update semantics (are omitted fields preserved or reset?), which is the critical ambiguity for an 8-parameter update, nor about authorization or reversibility.
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, front-loaded with the operation and resource, with no filler. It is efficient rather than bloated; the problem is under-specification, not verbosity.
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 mutation tool with eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema and a 25% schema coverage, the description should explain update semantics and the undocumented fields. As written, an agent cannot confidently construct a call beyond `id` plus `status`.
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 only 25%, so the description must compensate and does not. It only restates the status parameter (whose enum the schema already enumerates) and leaves items, notes, title, discount, validUntil and paymentTerms completely undocumented, including whether they replace or merge.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Atualiza uma proposta existente') plus a scoped emphasis on status changes. It does not distinguish the tool from its close siblings novacrm_create_proposal, novacrm_get_proposal and novacrm_delete_proposal, so the agent must infer the split from names.
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?
Only an implicit cue ('existente') signals that a proposal must already exist. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over create/delete/get, no prerequisites about required permissions, and no note that only `id` is mandatory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.