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

Beyond the idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses the login requirement, the immediate PUBLISHED side effect including re-publishing an already taken-down company, asynchronous background risk review, and the concrete failure mode slug_taken. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot derive from 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then side effects, then alternatives – a sensible ordering. It is telegraphic and semicolon-chained, which costs a little readability, but no sentence is redundant.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin annotations, it covers auth, prerequisite read, error case, publish side effect, async moderation, and alternatives. The only gap is that it says nothing about what a successful response contains, which matters slightly more because no output schema exists.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: all fields are optional, yet slug/name must be supplied when absent, and slug collisions produce a specific slug_taken error. The phrase "没有时须提供 slug/name" is slightly compressed and could be clearer about which condition triggers the requirement.

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 specific verb+resource ("更新本人公司" / update my own company) and scopes it to the caller's own entity, which implicitly separates it from the sibling update_organization. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the self-vs-organization distinction.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite ("先 get_my_company" – call get_my_company first) and points to alternative dedicated tools for take-down/deletion ("下架/删除用专用工具"), which maps to archive_my_company / delete_my_company. The alternatives are described rather than named, which keeps it from a 5.

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