Bitrix24 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the update is partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or any rate limits. 'Update' implies mutation but lacks crucial context for safe usage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for using this update operation safely and effectively is missing.

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%, with all 7 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for gaps.

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 ('an existing deal in Bitrix24 CRM'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like bitrix24_update_company or bitrix24_update_contact, which follow the same pattern for different CRM entities.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing deal ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new deals), or refer to sibling tools like bitrix24_create_deal for creation or bitrix24_get_deal for retrieval.

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