update_deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' clearly signals a mutating operation, and the parameter list makes clear what can change. However, it doesn't disclose consequences like whether updating status is related to move_deal_stage, whether notes overwrite or append, or any permission requirements. Basic purpose is clear but deeper behavioral context is absent.

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 concise sentence that communicates the essential purpose with no wasted words. Every element earns its place, listing exactly the three updatable fields.

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 partial-update tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate. There's no output schema to document, and the param semantics are mostly handled by the schema. However, the overlap with move_deal_stage creates ambiguity that the description doesn't resolve, and the mutation consequences (especially around status transitions) are left unexplained.

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 100%, so all four parameters have individual descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds marginal value by enumerating 'status, value, or notes' as the updatable fields. The value parameter mentions 'minor currency units' which adds useful detail, and status enum values are documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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+resource combination: 'Update a deal's status, value, or notes.' It specifies exactly what fields can be modified. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish the tool from the sibling 'move_deal_stage' which also deals with deal state changes, though 'move_deal_stage' likely handles pipeline stage movements specifically.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance is provided. The description gives no context about when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives like move_deal_stage or create_deal. An agent would have to infer usage purely from the parameter names and enum options.

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