update-deal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add useful behavioral context by disclosing the HTTP PUT method and requiring 'sales:write' scope, which signals a state-changing operation. However, it does not disclose partial-update vs full-replacement semantics, what happens when nullable fields are omitted, or whether the response contains the updated deal.

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 concise and front-loaded: one sentence gives the operation, resource, endpoint, and required scope. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to provide more context. It covers the endpoint and auth scope but omits how to identify required id behavior, how nullable fields work, what the PUT replaces, or what is returned. The description is too thin for an agent to invoke correctly with confidence.

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?

The description provides no parameter-level guidance, while schema description coverage is only 11%, leaving most of the 9 parameters undocumented. Some names like 'title' and 'value' are self-explanatory, but nullability, date formats, and relationships like personId/organizationId are unexplained.

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 the exact operation and resource: 'Update a sales deal (PUT /api/public/sales/deals/{id})'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-deal, get-deal, and move-deal-stage. The HTTP method makes the intended action 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create-deal, get-deal, or move-deal-stage. There is no mention of prerequisites, e.g., 'use this for existing deals only' or 'use move-deal-stage to change pipeline stage'. The scope line is about auth, not usage context.

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