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

The annotations already mark this as a write operation (`readOnlyHint: false`). The description adds partial-update semantics and the null-clears-a-field behavior, and calls out that `name` is only settable here. It does not cover authorization or side effects, but the basic safety profile is present.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The verb and resource come first, followed by the two most important behavioral rules. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter update with no required fields and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: patch semantics, null-clearing behavior, and the unique role of `name`. It is not exhaustive about permissions or alternative tools, but nothing critical is missing for making a correct call.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, each parameter is already documented, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: omitted fields are left unchanged while null clears a field. It also highlights `name`'s special uniqueness. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') with a clear resource ('company details') and adds a distinctive constraint: `name` can only be set here. This separates it from siblings like `update_profile` and `get_company`, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives explicit call-time guidance: only include fields meant to change, and null clears a field. It does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives explicitly, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for company detail changes.

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