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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It merely says 'update' and does not clarify whether this is a partial update, whether unspecified fields are preserved, what permissions are needed, whether the operation is idempotent, or what response behavior to expect.

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 short sentence, so it is structurally compact, but it is under-specified rather than meaningfully concise. It does not earn its place beyond rephrasing the tool name.

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 five parameters, required identifiers, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. The agent cannot infer the effect of omitting name/domain/website, the response shape, or any constraints around the identifiers.

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%, and the property names like name, domain, website, company_id, and organization_id are self-explanatory at a basic level. However, the schema descriptions are trivial labels, and the tool description adds nothing about which optional fields are actually updatable or how partial updates behave.

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 states the verb 'update' and the resource 'CRM company', so an agent can tell this is a mutation of a company record. However, it mostly restates what the tool name already encodes and adds no scope, updatable fields, or distinguishing context versus the many sibling CRM tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus commsharbor_crm_companies_create, commsharbor_crm_companies_delete, commsharbor_crm_companies_get, or commsharbor_crm_companies_list. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned; the only hint is the verb 'update', which is already in the tool name.

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