update_company

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the write behavior, the versioning mechanism, the conflict handling, and the distinction between draft writing and publishing. No hidden destructive behavior.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator (full-document PUT). Every word adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and standard write operation, the description covers conflict behavior, versioning, and the separation from publishing. No missing details for an AI agent to use 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 input schema already describes both parameters with high coverage, but the description adds context: document should be the complete output from read_company, and expectedVersion is used to prevent stale updates. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 saves the company draft as a whole document, specifying it's a full-document PUT rather than a field merge. It distinguishes itself from related tools like read_company and request_publish_company by clarifying the scope and action.

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?

Provides explicit workflow instructions: read first for version, handle 409 conflicts by re-reading and retrying. Also clarifies when not to use (not for publishing) and that it is separate from the approval flow.

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