update_deal_fields

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: it will not overwrite existing fields without force=true, and returns conflicts for user decision. This is critical for a mutation tool. Could mention other details like error handling, but the main behavior is clear.

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 front-loaded with the main action, then provides important usage details. Each sentence adds value. Slightly longer due to warnings, but still concise for the complexity.

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?

The description mentions returning conflicts, but does not fully explain the return format (e.g., on success). Given no output schema, it could be more complete. However, it covers the most important behavioral aspects and parameter usage thoroughly.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), baseline 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: explains JSON format, enum exact text, set comma-separated, and the force parameter's condition. Includes an example.

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 explicitly states 'Atualiza campos personalizados de um negócio' (updates custom fields of a deal), with a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_deal (standard fields) and create_deal.

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?

Provides clear instructions on when to use (for custom fields), how to format enum and set values, and crucially warns about the non-overwriting behavior and the need for user confirmation before using force=true. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tools for standard updates.

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