rdstation_update_deal

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says 'update fields' and does not mention side effects, partial-update behavior, permissions, reversibility, or what a successful response looks like.

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?

One short declarative sentence with no filler, and the key verb and resource are front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices specificity in parameter and behavior details.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, an unspecified nested deal object, and no usage guidance, an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call. The description fails to explain the expected shape of the deal object or the outcome of the update.

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 'deal' object is opaque with arbitrary properties. The description adds only that fields are updated, not which fields are valid, how the deal object should be structured, or what deal_id means beyond its name.

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?

States a specific operation ('update fields') and resource ('existing deal in RD Station CRM'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_deal, get_deal, win_deal, and lose_deal.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_contact, or when win_deal/lose_deal would be more appropriate. It implies an existing deal but provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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