crm_update

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

Annotations already signal mutating/destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: it performs partial updates and requires user confirmation. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource scope, followed by two necessary usage constraints. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an output schema, rich input schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining operational context: partial update semantics, the fields example, and confirmation requirement. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema carries the parameter details; the description still adds value by clarifying that only changed fields should be sent and gives a stage-transition example that maps to the fields object.

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 names a specific action ('change fields') and explicit CRM resources (lead, deal, contact, company), with a concrete example (moving a deal to another stage). This differentiates it clearly from sibling create/delete/get tools.

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?

It states when to use it (update existing CRM objects) and gives operational guidance: pass only changed fields and expect user confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear.

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