pipedrive_update_deal_field_options

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: atomic failure if any option ID is missing, and the clarification that field_code is a 40-char hash, not the human name. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and critical constraint (atomicity), with every phrase earning its place. No extraneous information.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers core purpose, a key behavioral trait, and a parameter nuance. It lacks success return info but is reasonable for the context.

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%, and both parameters are well-described in the input schema. The description reiterates the atomicity requirement for options but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 explicitly states 'Bulk-update option labels of a deal enum/set field', clearly defining the action, target, and scope. The atomicity note and mention of field_code being a hash distinguish it from sibling tools like pipedrive_update_deal_field, which updates the field itself.

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 implies usage for updating existing option labels but does not explicitly specify when to use vs alternatives (e.g., creating a new field, updating other field properties). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving agents to infer from context.

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