update_deal_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that this is a PUT update, implying mutation, but does not explain whether fields are partially or fully replaced, what happens to omitted fields, required permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is very concise, with no wasted words, and front-loads the action and endpoint. It is appropriately brief for a tool whose parameter semantics are mostly covered by the schema, though it sacrifices behavioral and usage context for brevity.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full, what constraints apply to the URI or filename, or any operational caveats. The schema covers parameters but not the overall operation semantics.

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 86%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter detail, but the schema already documents most parameters clearly, including the externally hosted URI and custom body/query behavior. The only undocumented parameter is id, which is minor given overall coverage.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('deal attachment') and includes the HTTP endpoint, which disambiguates it from sibling tools like create_deal_attachment and get_deal_attachment. The verb plus resource is specific and immediately understandable.

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 such as create_deal_attachment or update_person_attachment. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, so the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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