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

Annotations are minimal and only indicate read/write and destructive intent; the description does not add behavioral context. It fails to disclose whether this is a partial update or full replacement, whether omitting optional fields clears them, what permissions are required, or what side effects updating company settings may have.

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 very short and contains no filler, so it is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified: a single generic phrase does not provide enough information to be considered an appropriately sized description for a tool with nine parameters and multiple sibling update tools.

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 the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description lacks critical context about update semantics, scope, and alternatives. An agent cannot tell what distinguishes this tool from update_client, update_branding, or update_user, nor whether fields are overwritten wholesale.

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 every parameter is already documented with type, meaning, and example where relevant. The description adds nothing beyond the word 'settings', which is acceptable under the baseline since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 action ('Update') and a clear resource ('company settings'), and the title clarifies this as the company profile. It is not a tautology, but it is generic and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like update_client, update_branding, or update_my_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention whether this is for company-level profile settings, whether it complements get_company, or when one would use update_branding or update_client instead.

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