pipedrive_activities_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the note field is raw HTML with no CDATA wrapper, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, reversibility, or rate limits for a mutation endpoint. One behavioral detail is not enough for a 14-parameter write tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The second sentence is arguably redundant with the schema's note description, but it is not verbose.

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 14-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 21% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent has no basis for deciding which fields to send, what happens to unsent fields, or whether it needs activity-type discovery first.

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 only 21% (activity_id, note, type), leaving 11 parameters (done, org_id, deal_id, lead_id, subject, user_id, due_date, due_time, duration, location, person_id) undocumented in both schema and description. The note/HTML remark in the description largely repeats the schema's own note description, so it adds little compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (an existing activity), so it is distinguishable from pipedrive_activities_create, pipedrive_activities_delete and pipedrive_activities_get. It does not, however, mention how it relates to the overlapping pipedrive_activities_mark_done sibling, whose job overlaps with the `done` parameter here.

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?

There is no guidance on when to update versus mark an activity done, no statement about partial vs. full replacement semantics, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the activity ID to exist. The only inference available is the implied 'this changes an existing record'.

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