ghl_opportunity_update_status

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds OAuth scope requirement (opportunities.write), which is useful. However, no details about side effects or response behavior are provided. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Description is concise (three lines) with clear structure: title, endpoint, OAuth scopes. The version header and source info are arguably unnecessary but not harmful. No wasted words beyond that.

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?

Simple tool with full schema coverage. Lacks mention of return value or success indication. For a status update, it would be helpful to know what the response contains. Sibling tools are numerous but that doesn't demand more detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema; it only mentions the endpoint. No extra semantic enrichment for the parameters.

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 it updates the opportunity status, and the endpoint PATH /opportunities/{id}/status reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_opportunity_update and ghl_opportunity_create by focusing solely on status updates.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is specifically for status changes, while ghl_opportunity_update exists for other field updates. The agent is left to infer this from the tool name.

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