pipedrive_update_phase

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint and other flags, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds useful context (Projects add-on, public beta) and notes board_id behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects of moving a phase or error handling, leaving minor gaps.

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 two sentences long with no unnecessary words. It frontloads the core purpose, then adds the key nuance about board_id and the add-on context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the main action and one special behavior. It could be more complete by noting partial update behavior or required permissions, but it is sufficient for a simple update tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema; it repeats that board_id moves the phase. Parameter semantics are adequately expressed in the schema.

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 project phase' with a specific verb and resource. It also notes that only id is required and that board_id can move the phase to a different board, which distinguishes it from other update tools and its siblings (create_phase, list_phases).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for creating or listing phases) or mention of required prerequisites. Sibling tool names imply the context, but the description is not explicit.

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