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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description meaningfully extends them: 'Only the fields you send change' (partial-update semantics), 'The lists replace the old lists' (replace vs. merge, a critical and non-obvious behavior), plus the admin-only and brief-lock constraints. This is substantive behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The most consequential constraint (partial update and list replacement) comes first, followed by access and locking conditions. 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation semantics, auth requirement, and lock condition for a 16-param write tool. The only gap is per-field meaning for the many undocumented parameters.

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 only 25%, so most of the 16 fields (name, industry, website_url, etc.) are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates with the two most important semantics — partial update and list replacement — but does not clarify any individual field's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Changes') and resource ('fields of the workspace's company profile'), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from the read-only get_company_profile sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the mutation verb is 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?

It supplies real usage constraints: 'Admin only' states a permission prerequisite and 'Locked while the first brief runs' states a timing restriction, both of which help decide whether the call can succeed. However it never says when to prefer this over a sibling or when not to call it, leaving that to inference.

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