update_matcher

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update an integration matcher.' It fails to explain whether the update is partial or full, if it returns the updated object, or what happens in error cases, leaving the agent blind to side effects.

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, short sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is too sparse to be considered well-structured; it lacks detail or a logical breakdown that would help an agent understand the tool's operation.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line description. It does not explain what an integration matcher is, how updates behave, what each parameter does, or what the return value looks like, making the description grossly inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 lists 5 parameters (id, sync_id, company_id, identifier, potential_company_id) but the description gives zero context about them. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no way to infer the meaning or required format of these fields, making the tool nearly unusable without external knowledge.

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 identifies the action (update) and the target (integration matcher), which is distinct from sibling tools like delete_matcher and list_matchers. However, it is terse and does not mention what specific fields or behaviors are involved.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context such as whether the matcher must exist first. It simply states the action without any practical usage direction.

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