update_a_deal_new

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Modifies an existing record in place' and 'Idempotent', which aligns with annotations but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, side effects, or access requirements. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Description is short (5 lines) and front-loaded with key info (emoji, HTTP method, purpose). However, 'Update a deal' appears twice, introducing minor redundancy. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

Tool is complex with nested body object and many fields, yet description omits return value, error handling, and example usage. With no output schema, more context is needed for an agent to confidently invoke this 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 coverage is 100%, so the description carries minimal burden. The description only says 'Update an existing deal' without elaborating on parameters like 'id', 'body', or nested fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters.

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?

Clearly states 'Update a deal' and 'Modifies an existing record', using specific verb and resource. Siblings include create and delete deal tools, so purpose is distinguishable. However, the description repeats 'Update a deal' without further differentiation, missing a chance to explicitly set it apart from other update tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_a_deal_note or update_a_pipeline. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only hint is the HTTP method PUT and idempotency, but not contextual usage.

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