update_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the purpose of certain fields (e.g., deal_stage_id for pipeline movement, feeling score range) but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether the update is idempotent. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 description is concise: a one-line header, a bullet list of use cases, and a final instruction. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the structure is well-organized for quick scanning.

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?

The description covers the main use cases and parameter intent but omits information about the return value (e.g., whether it returns the updated deal object). Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters) and missing output schema, this is a minor gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing parameters (e.g., 'deal_stage_id — change this to move through pipeline', 'reservation_reason_id — for lost deals') and emphasizing partial updates, which goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing deal in Propstack' and lists specific use cases (move pipeline stage, update price, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling update tools.

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?

The description provides explicit scenarios for using the tool (e.g., 'Move a deal to the next pipeline stage') and includes the instruction 'Only provide the fields you want to change,' indicating partial updates. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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