update_deal_stage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('update deal stage') without any information about permissions required, whether the operation is destructive, what happens to the deal data, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a critical gap that leaves the agent uninformed about risks and outcomes.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase in Russian. While this avoids unnecessary verbosity, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is simple but lacks the front-loaded clarity needed for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose and usage.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with two required parameters), the absence of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond its name, provides no behavioral context, and offers no parameter semantics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively or safely.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter ('deal_id' or 'stage_id') has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no additional information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, valid values, or how they interact. With two required parameters and no guidance in either the schema or description, the agent cannot understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Обновление стадии сделки' (Update deal stage) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_deal_stage' in Russian. While it identifies the verb ('update') and resource ('deal stage'), it doesn't provide any specific details about what this operation entails or how it differs from other deal-related tools like 'get_deal' or 'list_deals'. The description is minimal and doesn't add meaningful differentiation from 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_deal' or 'list_deals'. Without any context about when this tool is appropriate or what it accomplishes that other tools don't, the agent has no basis for selecting it correctly.

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