dealdesk.patch_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful cross-object behavior (patch_card updates the linked case when one exists), but never states permission/auth requirements, whether updates are partial or full replacement, reversibility, or what happens to omitted fields on a 13-param mutation. Some behavioral value beyond structured data, but with no annotation coverage the gap is notable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and field list, followed by the sibling routing rule. No filler. Could be marginally tighter but every clause earns its place.

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 13-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 38% schema coverage, the description is thin. The routing guidance helps selection, but much of the parameter surface and all mutation/permission semantics are left to the schema or unstated.

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 only 38% across 13 params, so the description should compensate. It mentions title, stage, description, links, and the estimate group including estimatedValuePeriod, but says nothing about the ID fields (quoteId, companyId, contactId, ownerUserId) or their nullability semantics. It adds marginal meaning over the schema without closing the coverage gap.

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) and resource (DealDesk case), then enumerates the mutable field groups (title, stage, description, links, estimates including estimatedValuePeriod). It explicitly routes to the sibling dealdesk.patch_card for the desk-card path, so the agent can distinguish it from patch_card without opening either schema.

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 clear context: 'For an existing desk card, prefer dealdesk.patch_card with the same estimate fields (it updates the linked case when one exists).' This names the alternative and the selecting condition. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' clause, but the routing rule is actionable enough to guide tool selection.

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