ghl_opportunity_update_pipeline

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that stages is a full replacement, how to retain existing stages via the id field, that all stages cannot be removed, that opportunities in removed stages are auto-migrated to the lowest-position remaining stage, and the case-insensitive uniqueness constraint. It also names the OAuth scope (pipelines.write) and endpoint version, which are exactly the side-effect and permission details an agent needs; none of this contradicts the idempotent/destructive hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the critical replacement semantics before the constraints, and each constraint sentence earns its place. The trailing documentation link and endpoint/scope metadata add length but are justified provenance for an agent needing to verify details.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the risky behaviors (stage replacement, migration of opportunities, uniqueness, permission scope) that an agent could otherwise get wrong. Nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema's own stages description is vague (and item typing is loose), so the description adds real value by explaining replacement semantics and the id-on-existing-stage rule. It doesn't explain the other body fields (showInFunnel, colorRenderMode), but the schema already documents those, so a 4 is fair.

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 and resource ("updates an existing pipeline") and clearly separates this from ghl_opportunity_create_pipeline and ghl_opportunity_delete_pipeline by naming the resource and update scope. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by "updates an existing pipeline," and the description explains how to use the stages array, but it never states when an agent should reach for this vs. create/delete pipeline operations or what prerequisites (existing pipelineId) are required. The operational detail is rich but it is 'how', not 'when vs. alternatives'.

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