update_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not state whether it is a partial or full replacement, whether it requires any permissions, what happens to omitted fields, or what the response looks like. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it is under-specified, failing to include useful context that could be added without much verbosity. It is appropriately short for a simple update message but lacks necessary structural elements like sections or clarifications.

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 tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, edge cases, or how parameters interact. The lack of annotations and schema descriptions leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has 16 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond what the raw property names provide. It only mentions the required 'id', leaving the other 15 fields (e.g., id_number, parent_company_id, company_type) entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('company'), and the identifier ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_company and create_company by specifying update semantics. However, it lacks detail on what specific fields or behaviors are involved, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_company, archive_company, or delete_company. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or excluded scenarios. The description implies usage but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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