crm_update_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. 'Validated properties' hints at validation but doesn't explain validation rules or error behavior. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic update operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'validated' means, doesn't describe the response format, doesn't mention error conditions, and doesn't differentiate from similar tools. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary contextual information.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'validated properties' which partially explains the 'properties' parameter, but doesn't clarify what 'companyId' represents or provide any details about the specific properties that can be updated (name, domain, website, etc.). For a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this minimal explanation is insufficient.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing company'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_create_company by specifying 'existing' rather than new creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from crm_batch_update_companies or crm_update_object, which could handle similar operations.

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 like crm_batch_update_companies, crm_update_object, or crm_update_contact/crm_update_lead. It mentions 'validated properties' but doesn't explain what validation entails or when validation might fail. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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