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

Annotations already establish that this is not a read-only or destructive operation, so the description adds little behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the update replaces all fields, whether optional fields are preserved, whether permissions are required, or whether there are side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists, but no meaningful behavior beyond 'update' is revealed.

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, which is front-loaded, but it essentially restates the tool name/title and provides no additional information. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; every word adds little value.

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?

Despite a rich schema and an output schema, the description is inadequate for guiding selection and invocation in context. It lacks usage scenarios, behavioral semantics, and any distinction from closely related company/client/profile update tools. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to complete the operational picture 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 the input schema documents every parameter thoroughly. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the generic 'settings' term, but the schema carries the burden, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 and resource: 'Update company settings.' It is clear enough to indicate the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_branding or update_client, and 'settings' is somewhat broad compared to the title 'Update company profile.'

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_branding, update_client, or get_company. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the verb 'update.' An agent selecting among the many update_* siblings gets no help here.

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