dealdesk.patch_status_update

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 usefully discloses the authorization model (authors edit own comments/touchpoints, tasks by staff) and implies optimistic concurrency via the updatedAt recommendation. However, it never explains PATCH/partial-update semantics, what happens to omitted fields, or any destructive behavior for this 17-parameter mutation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then permissions, then the workflow hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 17 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and auth well but leaves return values, partial-update behavior, and most parameter meanings unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 low (35%), so the description should compensate. It groups the parameters into three conceptual surfaces (comment/task/touchpoint), which helps an agent understand the polymorphism, but it does not clarify the many undocumented fields (note, dueAt, subject, contactIds, occurredAt, recurrence, participants, assigneeUserId, touchpointType, mentionedUserIds).

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 (an existing status update), and enumerates the three editable surfaces (comment body, task fields/status, touchpoint fields). 'Existing' clearly distinguishes it from create_status_update and list_status_updates among the siblings.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Prefer list_status_updates first for statusUpdateId and updatedAt') and states the condition that selects it, plus the edit authorizations. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or other alternatives, but the routing guidance is clear.

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