Update Opportunity Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the operation's safety profile. The description merely restates the action and the status values that are already defined in the input schema enum, adding no new behavioral context such as side effects, prerequisites, or reversibility. With annotations present, the description fails to add value beyond them.

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, compact sentence that conveys the action and allowed values without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks any mention of return values or error conditions, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation make the description reasonably complete. The only gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sibling update tool.

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%: both 'status' and 'opportunityId' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage details for the parameters beyond what is already present, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and clearly identifies the resource ('status of an opportunity'). It also enumerates the allowed values (open, won, lost, abandoned), making its scope explicit and distinguishing it from the broader ghl_update_opportunity sibling tool.

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description: it is for updating opportunity status specifically. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_update_opportunity for other fields, nor does it mention any conditions (e.g., 'use this when only changing status'). This leaves the decision to the agent based on context.

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