Update GHL Opportunity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it updates existing opportunities and lists updateable fields, providing some behavioral context. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but the annotations cover the basic safety profile.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It lists relevant examples without any fluff or redundant content, making it highly efficient.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not describe return values, partial update behavior, error handling, or any prerequisites. Although the examples give some direction, the lack of depth leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 low (25%, only opportunityId and pipelineStageId have descriptions). The description partially compensates by mapping examples to parameters ('move stages' → pipelineStageId, 'change value' → monetaryValue, 'update status' → status), but it does not explain the remaining parameters like name, source, assignedTo, or pipelineId.

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 an existing opportunity' with specific examples of what can be changed (stages, value, status). This identifies it as a general update tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'ghl_update_opportunity_status', which also updates status, creating a slight ambiguity.

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 examples 'move stages, change value, update status' provide concrete scenarios for when to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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