update_opportunity

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

Annotations only set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are self-evident for an update tool. The description carries the full behavioral burden and exceeds it: closed-record editability, null semantics for owner/team, the defensive read-modify-write for owner changes, milestone automations that can mutate owner/team, and empirical wire-trace verifications. No annotation contradiction; the description enriches the sparse annotation context substantially.

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 long but every sentence carries operational information — no filler. It front-loads the core update capability, then systematically addresses edge cases. While it could be considered verbose, the density of the 14-parameter surface justifies the length. Minor deduction for a slight ramble in the fields.value sub-description, but overall well-structured.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema and nested objects, the description is exhaustively complete. It covers nullability, side effects, cross-entity differences, automations, API quirks, and empirical verification references. An agent would have everything needed to call this correctly in any scenario.

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 64%, and the description compensates richly for parameters with complex semantics. For example, partyId explains null rejection and cross-entity nullability differences; ownerId details preservation logic and team-clear risk; milestoneId covers cross-pipeline relocation and automation side effects; probability clarifies the restriction when closing. Each parameter's description goes far beyond the schema's type and constraints.

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 opens with 'Update fields on an existing opportunity' and immediately names the primary fields (partyId, ownerId, teamId) and the reassignment semantics. It differentiates from siblings by noting parity with update_party/update_project and explicitly contrasting update_task.partyId nullability. The verb-resource-object relationship is precise and 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: reassign party via partyId, unassign owner/team with null, closed opportunities are editable (with a caveat to enforce stability caller-side). It also states when NOT to use — partyId: null is rejected and probability cannot be set alongside a closing milestone. The description names alternatives (e.g., use web UI for dissolving party link) and dependencies (e.g., read current value via embed='fields').

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