update_deal

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions the ability to update fields and accept name/ID for some parameters, but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or conditional requirements like 'lost_reason' when status is 'lost'. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key capability. It is concise without being overly terse, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits conditional requirements (e.g., lost_reason when status=lost), does not explain return values, and lacks context on side effects or constraints. The tool is complex but the description leaves many gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that name or ID can be used for pipeline, stage, and responsible, but this is already present in the parameter descriptions. No additional semantic value beyond 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 the tool updates a deal, listing key fields like status, stage, pipeline, value, etc. It also highlights the ability to accept name or ID for pipeline, stage, and responsible. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling 'update_deal_fields', leaving room for ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_deal' or 'update_deal_fields'. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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