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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context beyond that — blank values omitted, omitted fields cleared, all linked workspaces updated at once, and the required company_context:write scope. The only gap is that it doesn't say what the response looks like or how partial failures across linked workspaces are handled.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load: operation semantics, when to use, blast radius, edge case, and auth requirement. Replace semantics and the read-first warning are front-loaded where they matter most.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the semantics, the permission requirement, the cross-workspace impact, and the empty-payload behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so per-field meanings are already documented and baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining replace-vs-merge behavior for the ten optional fields — that omitted fields are cleared and an empty object wipes facts — which the schema cannot express.

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 and resource ('Full-replace a company's profile by id') and pins the semantics with 'PUT semantics', which separates it cleanly from create_company and get_company. An agent knows exactly what operation this is 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 an explicit trigger ('Use it when the user changes a client's facts') and an explicit prerequisite route ('read it first with get_company'), naming the sibling tool to call first. It also covers the degenerate case (empty object) so the agent knows the outcome of that path.

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