update_deal_stage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a mutating/write operation ('write action', 'move a deal'), but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, authorization requirements, or what happens on invalid stage values. The description states the core behavior but leaves significant behavioral context unaddressed.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence with a concrete example and a clear operating scope. No filler words, no redundant paraphrasing of the tool name, and the action is front-loaded. Every part of the sentence contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of operational context beyond the schema. It is a mutation tool, but it does not explain how to validate/obtain the internal stage id, whether the stage update is idempotent, or what the success or failure response looks like. For an agent to invoke this blindly, the description is too thin.

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?

The schema documents dealStage with a helpful 'Internal HubSpot dealstage value' but dealId has no description at all (50% coverage overall). The description offers no explicit meaning for either parameter—the example hints that dealStage is a target stage string, but does not clarify the format of dealId or how dealStage values should be obtained. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more but does not.

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 and resource ('Move a deal to a new pipeline stage') and includes a concrete example that makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_deals, get_deal, and create_deal, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 frames this as 'the most common day-to-day CRM write action,' which implies the tool is the go-to for updating deal stages during normal workflow. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of sibling alternatives like create_deal for new deals, and no prerequisites such as looking up the deal id first. Usage context is present but under-specified.

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