Update an existing sales opportunity by its ID, modifying fields like name, value, status, probability, and expected close date. Ensure criteria match to adjust records directly in BoondManager.
Update an existing opportunity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| value | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| companyId | No | ||
| contactId | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| probability | No | ||
| expectedCloseDate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but provides no information about side effects, required permissions, idempotency, partial update behavior, or what happens if the record doesn't exist. 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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than concise; it lacks any substantive structure or additional detail. It is appropriately sized for a minimal statement but not for a tool with 9 parameters.
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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain which fields are updateable, which are required, how values are interpreted, or what the response looks like. An agent would have to rely solely on the schema, which itself lacks descriptions, making the tool nearly impossible to use correctly.
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 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The schema provides names and types, but no explanation of their meaning or usage. The description offers no additional semantic value to help an agent understand how to fill in the parameters correctly.
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 states a clear verb (update) and resource (opportunity), distinguishing it from tools that create, search, or get opportunities. It is not a tautology because it specifies the resource and the fact that it updates an existing record. However, it adds no detail about what fields can be updated or any constraints.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer update over create, or any conditions that should trigger this tool. The context is implied by the name but not explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.