dealdesk.patch_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Update' signals mutation but nothing discloses partial-update semantics (are omitted fields left unchanged?), whether nullable fields can be cleared with null, permission/scope requirements (only hinted at via schema text on projectId), or what the response returns. For a 12-parameter mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler is well structured, but it is under-sized for a tool with 12 parameters. The brevity here reflects missing detail rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, the description should do far more. It omits update semantics, permissions, return behavior, and most parameter meaning, leaving an agent unable to call this confidently beyond guessing.

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 8% (just projectId), so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. The parenthetical loosely maps to title, stage, description and estimates, but leaves quoteId, companyId, contactId, ownerUserId, probabilityPercent, and estimatedValueCurrency completely undocumented and never explains null vs. omission semantics.

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 clear verb+resource ('Update a DealDesk case') and enumerates the mutable field categories (title, stage, description, links, estimates), which is more than a tautology. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling patch_* tools (patch_card, patch_quote, patch_company, patch_contact) beyond naming the resource.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as create_case or get_case. The agent is left to infer the context entirely from the name.

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