pipedrive_update_deal

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'update', such as what happens if ID not found, required permissions, or side effects. With annotations covering basic traits, description provides marginal added value.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key instruction. No wasted words; every sentence is essential.

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?

Despite 17 parameters (including nested custom_fields) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain partial update semantics, response details, or behavior when optional fields omitted. For a complex tool, more context is needed beyond annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. Description adds no additional meaning over the schema, e.g., does not explain partial update behavior or relationships between fields (like lost_reason requiring status='lost'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Update' and resource 'existing deal in Pipedrive', specifying required deal ID and optional fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_deal by focusing on updates.

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?

Description implicitly conveys usage for updating a deal but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., when to use pipedrive_update_deal vs other update tools like update_deal_discount or update_deal_field). No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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