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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'Only include fields you want to change' is a useful disclosure that unspecified fields are not overwritten, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it lacks information about permissions, side effects, error behavior, and what happens when the id does not exist.

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 short sentences with no filler. The operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a distinct, useful constraint about partial updates. Every word 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this definition is thin. It does not state what a successful patch returns, how invalid or missing ids are handled, or what values are accepted for fields like size and industry. The simple schema reduces risk, but the agent still lacks operational expectations.

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 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters. The only parameter-level insight is that only changed fields should be included, which lightly complements the schema's optional fields. The property names are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the complete absence of parameter descriptions.

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 first sentence names the resource ('a company') and a specific verb ('Patch'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like companies_create, companies_get, and companies_delete. The second sentence reinforces the partial-update nature. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the create/update/delete/list grouping makes the purpose clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus companies_create, companies_delete, or other update tools. The instruction to 'only include fields you want to change' explains how to form the request, not when this tool is the right choice. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and sibling set.

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