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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: notes replaces the entire note unless append_notes=true, and renaming affects future lead matching. These are crucial side effects not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then delivers the two most critical behavioral nuances (notes replacement and renaming side effect). No filler, every sentence 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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage aspects: what fields can be updated, the notes behavior, and a side effect of renaming. It does not explicitly state that updates are partial (only provided fields), but that is implied by the optional fields. Missing a note on return value, but without an output schema this is less critical.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing the updatable fields and clarifying that notes replaces the whole note unless append_notes=true. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, especially for the notes and append_notes behavior. However, it does not elaborate on semantics of each field (e.g., what headcount represents), but the field names are self-explanatory enough.

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') and resource ('CRM company'), enumerates the affected fields (account notes or details: name, website, industry, location, headcount), and differentiates from siblings like update_crm_lead or update_contact by targeting companies. It also explains the special behavior of notes and renaming, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (updating CRM company details), and the behavioral notes (notes replacement, append option, renaming side effect) help the agent decide if this is the right action. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as log_crm_note or update_crm_lead, nor state exclusions, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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