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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that this is an accounting-critical write that overwrites the workspace's legal identity, clears fields when the anchor moves, records a manual-confirm audit row, and syncs the billing customer name. It also states what it does not do—re-post journal entries—and that unauthorized callers are refused, not silently ignored. These details align with destructiveHint=true and add significant safety context.

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 well-structured with bolded section labels and front-loads the core purpose before diving into details. Each sentence adds a distinct, non-redundant fact: prerequisite, side effects, boundary of behavior, authorization, and dependency. The length is justified by the sensitivity and complexity of the write operation.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, authorization, side effects, what the operation does not do, and a hard-gate dependency on well_start_close. With an output schema present and annotations aligning with the described behavior, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds crucial semantics for company_id: it must already exist in the workspace, can be obtained via well_query_records or well_create_company, and this tool never creates one. It does not add extra meaning for workspace_id or idempotency_key, but the schema descriptions for those are sufficient.

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 precise operation—setting which existing company is the workspace's own-company anchor—and distinguishes itself from creation tools by explicitly saying 'this tool never creates one.' It also names related tools like well_query_records and well_create_company for obtaining the company_id, making its role clear relative to siblings.

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 gives explicit guidance: company_id must reference an already-existing workspace company, how to obtain it, and the instruction to confirm the exact company with the user before calling. It also specifies the workspace owner/admin role restriction and notes that well_start_close hard-gates on this anchor, so an agent knows the prerequisite and consequence context.

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