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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the effect of 'removed' on the nightly monitoring sweep and the ability to resume with 'active'. It does not exhaustively detail side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 extremely tight: one summary sentence covers purpose and the key behavioral nuance, and a one-line returns note covers output. No filler or repeated schema content; every sentence earns its place and the critical behavior is front-loaded.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage, the provided annotations, and the simple parameter set, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It clarifies the stage lifecycle, notes the return type, and names the two stage values that matter. No critical information is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the stage parameter to real-world consequences ('removed' stops monitoring, 'active' resumes it), which enriches the raw enum values already present in 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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('a single monitored company'), and the exact scope ('stage and/or data'). This distinguishes it from related monitoring siblings like query_monitored_companies and track_monitored_companies, which read or track rather than mutate.

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 concrete usage instructions for the pivotal stage values: setting stage='removed' to stop the nightly sweep and 'active' to resume. This is clear, actionable context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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