ghl_opportunity_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds OAuth scopes and verifies the body against a DTO, but does not disclose the return format (e.g., updated opportunity object or success message), effects of missing fields, or error scenarios.

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 reasonably concise, containing two paragraphs with key information. However, the first paragraph is a run-on list of fields that could be more structured. No unnecessary fluff.

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 no output schema and complex nested parameters, the description lacks information about the response format or success indicators. The agent cannot infer what the tool returns upon update. The endpoint and OAuth scopes are helpful but not fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description mainly re-lists fields already described in the schema. It adds minimal semantic value beyond confirming the fields are 'verified present' against a DTO, which is not critical for agent understanding.

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 'Update Opportunity' and lists the specific fields that can be updated (pipelineId, name, pipelineStageId, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also provides the endpoint and HTTP method, reinforcing the update action.

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 use for updating existing opportunities but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_opportunity_create or ghl_opportunity_upsert. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., opportunity must exist) or when not to use this tool is provided.

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