ghl_opportunity_update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'update' but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, return values, or how update behaves (e.g., partial vs. full replacement).

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 extremely brief, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not provide enough information for a 13-parameter tool, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful summary.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It offers no information about expected outcomes, error conditions, or usage context, leaving the agent without essential guidance.

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 schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high; it neither helps nor hurts.

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 'Update an opportunity' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'ghl_opportunity_update'. It provides a verb and resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond the obvious update action, and it repeats the name's meaning without adding specificity.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_opportunity_create or ghl_opportunity_get. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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