deals_list_field_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the complete changelog, shows old and new values, includes timestamp and user info, and is cached for 5 minutes. This provides sufficient behavioral insight for a read-only operation.

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 well-structured with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by bullet points for clarity. It is slightly lengthy but each section adds useful context; no redundant information.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers what to expect (old/new values, timestamps, user info) and mentions caching. It does not explain how this differs from deals_list_updates, but overall it is complete for its purpose.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters (one: id) with a basic description. The description adds value by providing example usage ('View full changelog: { "id": 123 }') and contextualizing the parameter's role in use cases, beyond just schema documentation.

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 it lists updates (changelog) for deal field values, distinguishing it from other deals tools like deals_list_updates or deals_get. The verb 'list' and resource 'deal field updates' are specific and unambiguous.

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 workflow tips and common use cases (audit trails, compliance, tracking changes), which imply when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives like deals_list_updates or deals_get, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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