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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the hard dependency on generate_agent_script, but says nothing about whether existing values are overwritten, whether the id must reference an existing agent, or what happens on partial/invalid input.

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 tight sentences with the prerequisite front-loaded before the field list. No filler, though it is very sparse for a required-parameter mutation tool.

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 4-required-param, annotation-free mutation with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description omits the id semantics and the set/overwrite behavior. The prerequisite is covered but the mutating contract is not.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names three of the four parameters (name, website, description) in natural language, but never explains the required `id` parameter or any format expectations such as website URL form.

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?

Names a specific verb (set) and resource (agent company info) and enumerates the three fields being written. The naming sits cleanly alongside the other set_agent_* siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

States a concrete ordering prerequisite — 'Required before generate_agent_script will work' — which tells the agent when this must be called. It stops short of naming alternatives for configuring the agent (e.g. update_agent) or noting any when-not condition.

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