update_opportunity_status

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

The description implies a mutation ('Change') but lacks behavioral details such as idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or error scenarios. Since no annotations are present, the description should provide more insight into the tool's behavior.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description is adequate but missing context about the return value, error handling, or any constraints on when a status can be changed. More completeness would improve usability.

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 100% with both parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it merely rephrases the parameter intent. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance the semantic understanding.

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 ('Change') and identifies the resource ('status of a GoHighLevel opportunity'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_opportunity' (which likely updates other fields) and 'create_opportunity' (which sets initial status).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using 'update_opportunity' to change the status along with other fields. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context on when not to use it.

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