manage_opportunity

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: true, indicating mutation. Description adds context: delete not possible, returns the created/updated object, and explains failure conditions. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying limitations and behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, Actions, Returns, FAILS WHEN, Note). Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be condensed 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?

Covers all important aspects: purpose, usage, failure conditions, and return value. Missing output schema is compensated by stating return is an opportunity object. With 5 params and 100% schema coverage, no major gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, but description links params to actions (create uses problem_statement, update uses opportunity_id) and notes conditions for failure. This adds practical meaning beyond schema definitions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Create or update an opportunity' and clarifies that delete is not available via API. This clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_opportunity and list_opportunities.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('USE WHEN: Create opportunity, Update problem'), actions (create with problem_statement, update with opportunity_id), and failure conditions (missing required params). Also directs users to get IDs from list_opportunities and offers alternative for delete (archive via workflow_status).

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