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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), yet the description still adds substantive behavior the annotations do not: login requirement, the immediate PUBLISHED side effect (including republishing an unpublished company), background async risk control, and the slug_taken error outcome. This is real value beyond 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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the login requirement, the action, the optionality, and then chains preconditions, error codes, side effects, and sibling routing. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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, 0-required update tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, error behavior, and alternatives, and annotations carry the safety profile. The only gap is that it does not indicate the return shape, though for a straightforward update that is minor.

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% and all 9 parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning ("字段可选", and a somewhat ambiguous "没有时须提供 slug/name" conditional), not enough to lift it above baseline.

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+resource ("更新本人公司") and scopes it to the caller's own company, then explicitly routes away from siblings by naming get_my_company as a prerequisite and pointing unpublish/delete to dedicated tools. An agent can distinguish this from delete_my_company, archive_my_company, and update_organization without opening a 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 precondition ("先 get_my_company"), a when-not rule ("下架/删除用专用工具"), and a fallback requirement ("没有时须提供 slug/name"). This is direct when/when-not/alternative guidance rather than implied usage.

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