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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value on top by disclosing the all-optional/partial-save semantics, the PRECONDITIONS_NOT_MET failure mode, and that the response carries a `missing` list plus nextAction/nextActionInput. It stops short of warning that `members` replaces the entire saved member set, which is the most consequential destructive behavior and matters most for a tool annotated destructive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then behavior, then the gate. Every sentence carries distinct information — no restatement of the title and no filler.

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 10-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, incremental calling pattern, precondition gate, and error code, so an agent can call it correctly. The one omission is the destructive overwrite semantics of `members` and of re-saved fields, which the agent must learn from the schema rather than the description.

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 the schema already explains enums, formats, and per-field constraints. The description contributes only the general framing that every field is optional and persisted as given; it adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema states (e.g. industry must come from search_industries, members must total 100%).

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?

States a specific verb (Saves) and a specific resource (the company's post-payment details), then enumerates exactly which fields belong to that bundle: industry/description, backup names, addresses, members with ownership, and the IRS responsible party. An agent can tell this apart from read-side siblings like get_company_info or get_company_onboarding_status without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit calling cadence ('save each answer as soon as the user gives it'), an explicit precondition ('Refused with PRECONDITIONS_NOT_MET until verify_payment has confirmed payment'), and names the next-step driver in the response. This is when-to-use, prerequisite, and follow-on routing in one place.

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