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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals sensitive-tier permissions, clarifies that managers operate without a card, and explains the approval flow and the exception for connector OAuth. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It doesn't describe return behavior or idempotency, but for a straightforward update tool this is a notable strength.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence is concise, the second clarifies exclusions, and the bracketed permission note is useful but somewhat verbosely worded. It earns its place without excessive length.

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?

The description covers permissions, exclusions, and approval flows, which is good given the lack of annotations. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., updated company object) or any side effects, and since there's no output schema, agents are left guessing about the response format. This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description merely lists example fields (mission, vision, etc.) that map to schema properties, adding no new meaning. Since the schema covers everything, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't compensate 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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('company profile'), lists specific fields (mission, vision, elevator pitch, logo, website) and explicitly distinguishes itself from set_company_lifecycle by stating what it does not do. This is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling 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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance by directing to set_company_lifecycle for lifecycle operations. Also includes detailed approval context (managers run without a card, others need approval, and connects still require OAuth card). However, it doesn't contrast with other update tools like update_my_profile or update_brand_guidelines, though those target different resources and are easily inferred.

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