Update a Rootr CRM node (pipelines/fields/config)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that passing pipelines replaces the entire array, a non-obvious behavioral trait. However, it does not clarify whether other fields (config, fields, icon) are also replaced or merged, leaving some ambiguity. The merge-patch term implies partial update for those fields.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence directly stating the action. The second sentence includes extra context about the CRM feature set, which is useful but somewhat verbose. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 explains the replacement behavior for pipelines and recommends prior retrieval, which is good. However, it does not describe the return value (no output schema), nor does it clarify whether other fields are merged or replaced. The tool has nested objects and complex behavior, so more detail would improve completeness.

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). The description adds context about merge-patch behavior and the replacement effect for pipelines, but does not provide additional per-parameter details beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (merge-patch) and resource (Rootr CRM node), and specifies which parts can be updated (pipelines, fields, config, icon). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on updating an existing CRM node, contrasting with creation or retrieval tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: for updating a CRM node. Provides critical guidance: passing 'pipelines' replaces the whole array, so users should call rootr_crm_get first to preserve existing stages/pipelines. This clarifies when not to use the tool directly without preparation.

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