teamleader_deal_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action 'update' without explaining whether it is a partial or full update, what permissions are required, whether the updated deal is returned, or how errors are surfaced. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It earns its place by stating the core purpose efficiently.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about update semantics, return values, validation, or side effects. It only restates the obvious, leaving the agent without enough context to reliably predict behavior for a write operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema fully documents each parameter, so no further compensation is needed.

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 'Update an existing deal in Teamleader Focus.' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (deal), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from creation tools like teamleader_deal_create and from lifecycle tools like win/lose/move.

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 other deal operations such as move, win, or lose. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the name alone.

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