pipedrive_update_stage

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the core safety profile. The description adds the specific behavior of moving stages via pipeline_id, but doesn't discuss permissions, side effects, or return values. This is fine given annotation coverage, but the description doesn't go beyond that.

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 with the action stated first, followed by essential usage details. No fluff, perfectly front-loaded, and each 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?

For a simple update operation with full schema documentation and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate. It covers purpose, usage, and key parameter semantics. It doesn't mention return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. It adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are updated and by highlighting pipeline_id as the way to move the stage. This provides operational context beyond the schema's per-parameter 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 stage' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions moving to another pipeline via pipeline_id, which further clarifies the scope. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling pipedrive_update_phase, but the resource names are different enough to avoid confusion, so it's not a tautology.

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 gives operational guidance: provide the stage id and fields to change, and set pipeline_id to move. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since there is no direct alternative for updating stages, the guidance is adequate but lacks explicit 'when-not' conditions.

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