wealthbox.opportunities.update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that an opportunity is updated by id, but fails to mention whether updates are partial or full replacements, permissions required, side effects, or behavior when the id does not exist. This is a significant transparency gap 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and adding a note about the raw body option. Every word earns its place, making it concise and efficient.

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 (9 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain update semantics, parameter usage, or expected behavior, leaving the agent without critical information to invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It only clarifies the purpose of 'id' and 'body' (raw body), leaving the other seven parameters (e.g., stage_id, pipeline_id, primary_contact_id) without any semantic context beyond their names. This is insufficient for a tool with nine 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the target resource ('opportunity by id'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer the raw body approach over individual fields. It merely states the obvious function.

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