update_deal

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: fields_values_json sends an empty list to clear a field, tags replaces existing tags, and pipeline/stage/owner parameters move/reassign the deal. This goes beyond simply stating 'update' and provides concrete side effects. Minor omissions like whether unspecified fields remain unchanged are left implicit, but overall transparency is strong.

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 opening sentence followed by a succinct bullet-style list of parameters, each on its own line. Every sentence is informative with no fluff or repetition. The format is easy to parse and front-loads the primary purpose before diving into 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?

The description covers all six parameters and their behavioral semantics, which is comprehensive given the tool's complexity. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It could add a note on partial update behavior (e.g., unspecified fields remain unchanged), but the current level is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in detail: deal_id is the Nimble ID, fields_values_json has a specific JSON structure with clear instructions for clearing fields, pipeline_id/stage_id move the deal, owner_id reassigns, and tags replaces the list. This is exceptional parameter 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 opens with 'Update an existing deal,' which clearly identifies the verb (update), resource (deal), and scope (existing). This directly distinguishes it from siblings like create_deal and delete_deal. The parameter list further clarifies the kinds of updates supported.

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 implies usage by being an update tool; an agent can infer it is for modifying existing deals. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools (e.g., use it instead of create_deal for existing records) or any exclusions. The context is clear but not fully spelled out.

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