crm_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. It mentions 'validated properties' which hints at some validation behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are required, error handling, or what happens to unspecified properties. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 2 parameters (including a complex nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, return values, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 descriptions. The description mentions 'validated properties' which loosely relates to the 'properties' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'companyId' is, what specific properties can be updated, or what 'validated' means in practice. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare 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 verb 'update' and the resource 'existing company', making the purpose understandable. It specifies 'with validated properties' which adds some detail about the nature of the update. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'crm_batch_update_companies' or 'crm_update_object', which could handle similar updates.

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 batch updates or other CRM update tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing company ID) or contextual factors that would inform the agent's decision-making process.

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