update_deal_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies mutation via 'update' but doesn't state effects like reversibility, permissions, or error behavior, nor does it mention what the output contains.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose in one sentence followed by a succinct parameter list. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple update tool with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context like prerequisites or failure semantics. The parameter list is complete, but the overall completeness is limited given no annotations or behavioral details.

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%, so the description's argument list adds meaning beyond the schema by identifying each param's role (e.g., 'The Nimble deal ID', 'New title'). However, it's minimal and doesn't clarify optionality or constraints, which the schema partially signals with defaults.

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 'Update a deal note' with a specific verb and resource, identifying it as a mutation tool for deal notes. It distinguishes from siblings like update_note by the 'deal' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description lacks any context about typical scenarios or required prior actions.

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