Update Deal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds the useful scope detail that phase moves also change pipeline and that reassignment targets a contact, but it omits the key destructive question: whether properties omitted from the body are cleared or left untouched, and how appendMultiSelectValues interacts with that.

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?

The lead sentence "Update Deal." is a pure restatement of the title and earns no space, and the following sentence repeats the deal-by-ID idea. The third sentence is the only load-bearing one, so the structure is short but not well front-loaded.

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?

A destructive, open-world mutation tool with nested body and no output schema: the description covers the high-level surface but says nothing about partial-vs-full update semantics or what a successful response contains. Rich schema and annotations compensate much of the gap, keeping this at minimum-viable rather than inadequate.

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 100% and the body schema explains phaseId, contactId, the archived-contact constraint, and the custom-property convention via propertyIdentifier from list_properties. The description contributes nothing about parameters beyond restating three mutation categories, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Updates a deal by its ID") and enumerates the three mutation families: properties, phase, contact assignment. It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the obvious siblings create_deal, get_deal, or update_contact, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives (create_deal for new records, update_contact for the contact side of a reassignment), nor any prerequisite such as looking up custom property identifiers first. The only guidance lives in the schema's body description, not in the tool description itself.

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