update_deal

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Update' without explaining whether this is a partial update (only provided fields change) or a full replace, whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, if authorization is required, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutating 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 a single front-loaded sentence that gets to the point immediately. However, the trailing 'etc.' is vague and slightly weakens the specificity of the field list. It earns its place but could have been omitted or replaced with a more precise list.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. The schema covers parameter documentation, but the description does not address update semantics, which fields are cleared versus overwritten, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate for an agent to infer the core action, but gaps remain for a robust invocation decision.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'title, stage, amount, contacts' which roughly maps to schema properties, but the schema already describes each parameter more precisely (e.g., 'opportunity' as 'New deal amount'). The description adds no substantive semantic meaning beyond restating or loosely paraphrasing what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('existing CRM deal'), and enumerates key fields. The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from create_deal, and the update action separates it from get_deal and list_deals. This gives an agent enough information to know exactly what the tool does.

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 implies this is for modifying deals that already exist, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over create_deal or get_deal, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as needing a valid deal_id. There is no exclusionary guidance or naming of sibling alternatives, so usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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