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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement, which is useful, but does not state whether the update is partial (only provided fields) or a full overwrite, nor does it mention side effects, validation rules, or response behavior. For a mutation tool affecting multiple company fields, this is a significant gap.

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, tightly written sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a key constraint (authentication). There is zero waste. The most critical information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 10 parameters, all optional, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to guide an agent on calling it correctly: it doesn't explain whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, how partial updates work, or what happens on validation failure. An agent would need to make assumptions about update semantics, which is risky.

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 already has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Per the calibration, the baseline is 3 when schema covers all parameters, and the description doesn't enhance it further.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('your company's profile'), and the platform ('Himalayas'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like update_company_job and update_company_tech_stack, which target different aspects of the company. The phrase 'Requires employer authentication' adds crucial context about who can perform this 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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools. However, the resource and context are sufficiently clear that an agent can infer this is for updating company profile fields (as opposed to job postings or tech stack). The lack of explicit routing reduces score from 4 to 3.

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