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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's claim that changes 'alter the public career site' adds valuable context beyond annotations. It discloses a specific consequence of the mutation, which is helpful. However, it does not detail what is destroyed or whether changes are reversible, but the side-effect note is a strong addition.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds a critical side-effect note. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and impact.

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?

With 9 parameters, a nested logo object, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not mention the required 'id' parameter, nor does it explain fields like website, is_staffing_agency, or the structure of the logo object beyond the schema's required fields. It lacks guidance on expected response or error conditions. Given the tool's complexity and low schema coverage, more detail is necessary for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 11%, with only 'url' having a description. The description mentions 'owner contacts' and 'logo' and notes 'name, slug and logo changes' but does not explain all parameters such as website, is_staffing_agency, or company_owner_phone. It provides some semantic context for a few fields but leaves many undocumented. Given the low coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 a company profile, owner contacts or logo'. It specifies the resource (company) and the verb (update), and distinguishes from create/delete by the update verb. It also mentions side effects on the public career site, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_career_site_settings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 usage when you need to modify company profile fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_career_site_settings or update_job. It gives a warning about side effects ('name, slug and logo changes alter the public career site') but does not provide exclusions or alternative conditions. Context is clear but not complete.

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