pipedrive_update_deal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the mutation profile. The description adds minimal extra behavior context: it specifies that the deal must exist and that only provided fields are updated (implied by 'any fields to update'). It does not mention potential side effects, response behavior, or auth requirements, but the annotations carry the safety profile, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action ('Update an existing deal') followed by the key requirement ('Specify the deal ID and any fields to update'). There is no redundant information or filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but the schema covers all parameter details. It does not explain the response format or that the update is partial (only provided fields are changed), though 'any fields to update' implies partial. Given the complexity and the existence of many similar tools, more context on usage or expected outcomes would improve completeness, but the core functionality is clear.

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 every parameter is documented in the input schema. The description adds only that the deal ID and optional fields are to be specified, which is already implicit in the required 'id' and the list of properties. It provides no additional meaning, such as relationships between fields (e.g., won_time only when status is 'won' is already in the schema). Baseline 3 is correct.

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' and the resource 'existing deal in Pipedrive', with an explicit reference to the deal ID and updatable fields. It is specific and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pipedrive_update_deal_field or pipedrive_update_deal_product, though the resource 'deal' itself distinguishes it.

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, such as when dealing with sub-entities like deal fields or products. It only states what it does; there are no conditions, exclusions, or references to other tools. This is a significant gap given the large set of sibling tools.

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