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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it discloses that update can be single or bulk, that `data` holds the body, and that bulk uses `ids`. This is useful context that annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) do not provide. However, it does not discuss side effects, required permissions, or field merge/replace behavior, so the transparency is partial.

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 short but poorly structured. It front-loads a generic list of actions and the cryptic 'Companies do Kommo.' before focusing on update. The 'Flattened action: update' meta-comment adds jargon, and the bulk support note appears at the end. The ordering does not clearly lead with the tool's update purpose.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that don't detail behavior, the description only covers basic update modes (single/bulk) and the location of the body. It omits what fields can be updated, whether `id`/`ids` are required for update, what happens if neither is provided, and the response format. This is incomplete for a reliable invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the critical parameters `id` (single item), `data` (body), and `ids` (bulk), but the remaining 7 parameters (page, with, limit, order, query, filter, account) are left unexplained and appear to belong to other actions, causing confusion. This is insufficient for a 10-parameter schema.

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 does mention 'update' as an action and explains single vs bulk semantics, but it is buried in a list of other actions ('list', 'get', 'create') with a vague opening 'Companies do Kommo.' The 'Flattened action: update' note clarifies the tool, but the purpose is not stated directly and unambiguously from the start.

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 provides usage context by explaining the update behavior: 'com `id` = 1 item, sem `id` = bulk com array em `data`' and 'Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like kommo_companies_create or when not to use this tool, leaving the guidance only implied.

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