update_opportunity

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 only says 'update', implying a write operation, but does not explain whether the update is partial or full, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, required field validations, side effects, or the return format. This is a significant 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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff or redundant content. However, it sacrifices useful detail for brevity, so while structurally efficient, it is somewhat under-specified.

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 has a nested parameter object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, error handling, update semantics, or any operational context. The description is inadequate for an agent to fully trust and 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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters and the nested 'updates' object with field types. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 verb (Update), resource (Salesforce opportunity), and that it involves new information. While it doesn't add extra scope or detailed differentiation, it is specific enough to distinguish from sibling update tools like update_account and update_contact.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (create, search, other update tools), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left without context for selecting this tool appropriately.

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