accelo_update_prospect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It earns credit for one genuinely useful behavioral note – status_id 'bypasses progressions' – but says nothing about required permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what the call returns. Partial-update semantics are only implied.

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 single-sentence purpose is front-loaded, and the per-argument list is an efficient way to carry the semantics the schema lacks. No filler sentences; structure is scannable.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, parameter documentation is solid but behavioral coverage is thin: nothing on response shape, error behavior, or mutation side effects beyond the progression bypass. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all nine parameters are named with meaning, including units and ranges (weighting 0-5, progress 0-100) and the date_due unix-timestamp format, which the schema does not convey. Only the fields-return parameter is explained thinly.

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 (Update) plus resource (an existing prospect), which plainly distinguishes it from accelo_create_prospect, accelo_get_prospect, and accelo_delete_prospect. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the operation scope 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus accelo_create_prospect or accelo_run_progression, no preconditions, and no note on whether omitted fields are left unchanged. The agent must infer that this is a partial-update tool from the optional args list alone.

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