Edit Pipeline Item

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does add value by explaining name-based resolution and the need for prerequisites, but it does not mention return behavior, side effects, permissions, or whether automation runs by default. This leaves some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a numbered prerequisites list, a concise use statement, and a short note about name resolution. Every sentence contributes useful context without unnecessary fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers prerequisites and usage well. However, it omits any mention of return values or potential side effects, and does not clarify behavior like automation triggering beyond what the schema already states, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance beyond the schema by emphasizing the state_name/status_id and custom_field_names/custom_fields resolution strategy, and specifies when pipeline_id is required. This helps the agent choose the right parameter combination.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing pipeline item in Less Annoying CRM.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_pipeline_item, delete_pipeline_item, and get_pipeline_item by explicitly stating the intended uses: 'change status, add notes, or update custom field values.'

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 description provides clear prerequisites with exact tool names to call first, and states when to use this tool ('Use this to change status, add notes, or update custom field values'). However, it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, relying instead on implicit contrast with sibling tools.

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