conduyt_update_deal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully characterize how customFields mutations behave (merge semantics, omitting a key leaves it unchanged) and that the operation is a mutation of an existing deal, but it says nothing about authorization, whether stage moves can fail on requirements, or reversibility — the STAGE_REQUIREMENTS failure mode only lives in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The capability inventory comes first and the one genuinely surprising behavior (customFields merge) is isolated in the second sentence where it will be read.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the major operations and the one non-obvious merge rule. Gaps are minor: the stage-requirement failure path and that id is required are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's coverage.

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% and the property descriptions are already rich (probability as 0–1 fraction, source never clearable, lostReason stage requirements). The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping the field list to intent verbs ("move stage", "reassign", "mark won/lost") and by clarifying the merge-not-replace semantics of customFields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a deal") and enumerates the mutation surfaces: stage, value/currency, probability, close date, reassignment, won/lost, custom fields. It reads as a single-deal update, which implicitly separates it from conduyt_bulk_edit_deals, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and field list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus conduyt_bulk_edit_deals, conduyt_update_deal_working_mode, or conduyt_create_deal. No prerequisites, permission requirements, or exclusions are stated.

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