dealdesk.patch_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the most important behavioral fact: changing company/contact also updates a linked local case and quote customer link. It also clarifies the soft-close semantics and that no DELETE exists. It omits permission/auth requirements, idempotency, and return behavior, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb/resource and followed by the highest-risk details (linking, cascade, soft close). The parenthetical cross-references ('same as HTTP accountRef/contactRef', 'same as the DealDesk UI') are useful analogies but slightly verbose.

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, the description covers the essential update semantics, linking/clearing, cascading side effects, and the soft-close pattern. Remaining gaps (auth, response shape, the deprecated notes alias) are minor given they are partly covered by the schema.

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 67%, and the description adds real meaning for the trickiest inputs: the accountRef/contactRef equivalence for companyId/contactId and the null-to-clear behavior (including 'clear contact only' nuance). It says nothing about notes (deprecated alias), deskDescription, or the required projectId/cardId, leaving some parameters to the schema.

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 and resource ('Update a desk card') and enumerates the mutable fields (title, stage, description, company/contact), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not (e.g., patch_card_note), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives concrete usage rules: pass companyId/contactId to link Customer Directory records, pass null to clear, and use stage=closed for a soft close since there is no DELETE. These are actionable conditions, though it never states when to prefer this over patch_card_note or patch_case.

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