hires_update_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what permissions are required, or any side effects. The phrase 'Supports partner-operated account management' is vague and does not clarify the tool's behavior, such as whether it overwrites existing owner data or only updates provided fields. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('Update company profile...') and adds a brief context note. There is no wasted wording, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and special capability.

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?

With 9 parameters, a nested object for the logo, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., whether it returns the updated company object or a success message), how partial updates are handled, or what 'partner-operated account management' entails. The tool's complexity demands more context than this minimal description provides.

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?

The input schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, each with clear definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic grouping by mentioning 'owner contact data' and 'optional logo', which helps relate the parameters to the overall purpose, but it does not provide any additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. The added value is marginal but present.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update company profile, owner contact data, and optional logo.' This specifies the verb (update), the resource (company), and the scope (profile, owner data, logo). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_company, get_company, delete_company, and restore_company by focusing on updates. The mention of 'partner-operated account management' adds a distinct use case.

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?

The description implies usage ('Update company profile...') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The phrase 'Supports partner-operated account management' hints at a specific context, but it does not provide exclusions or name alternative tools, unlike a fully guided description. The usage is implied from the resource being 'company', which is unique among update tools, but no explicit guidance is given.

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