dealdesk.patch_status_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the authorship/staff permission model for comments, touchpoints and tasks, plus a pointer to the optimistic-concurrency token. It does not explain patch semantics (that omitted fields are left unchanged) or what happens on a stale updatedAt conflict, so gaps remain.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it could be organized slightly better to separate the scope statement from the permission and workflow guidance.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives scope, auth and a pre-step but leaves patch semantics, conflict behavior and most parameter meanings unstated. Adequate to attempt the call, not enough to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 42% across 19 parameters, so the description should compensate more than it does. It groups parameters into three meaningful domains (comment, task, touchpoint), which helps, but many undocumented fields (note, dueAt, subject, contactIds, occurredAt, recurrence, participants, assigneeUserId, touchpointType, mentionedUserIds) get no explanation in either place.

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 an existing status update') and usefully enumerates the three sub-kinds of update (comment body, task fields/status, touchpoint fields), which distinguishes it from create_status_update and list_status_updates. It never names a sibling tool by name, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 a concrete workflow ('Prefer list_status_updates first for statusUpdateId and updatedAt') and states the authorization rule that selects who may edit what. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against patch_card_note / patch_case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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