update_opportunity

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

Description says 'Update fields' implying modification, consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description adds no extra context about potential side effects or irreversibility. Basic adequacy but no 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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded. However, conciseness sacrifices needed detail; slightly better structure would include key constraints.

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 5 parameters (including nested object), no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits essential context: return value, update behavior (e.g., partial vs full replacement), and prerequisites beyond ID. Incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 0% and description provides no parameter explanations. Only parameter names hint at purpose (title, status, close_date, extra_fields, opportunity_id), but status allowed values, extra_fields structure, and close_date format are unspecified. Agent has insufficient information to set parameters correctly.

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 states specific verb 'Update' and resource 'Planhat opportunity' with 'existing', clearly distinguishing from create_opportunity and delete_opportunity. Siblings include many entity-specific update tools, so this tool is unambiguously scoped.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like updating via other methods, no prerequisites or context for updates (e.g., required fields beyond ID), and no mention of when to prefer other update tools.

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