patch_w_company_attack_surface_domain

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the update action and endpoint mechanics but does not describe side effects, partial vs. full replacement semantics, idempotency, authorization needs, or failure behavior. For a mutation tool 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 two short sentences with the action and endpoint front-loaded and no filler. Each clause contributes a transport-level instruction, making it easy to scan, though it could include a bit more domain detail without becoming bloated.

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?

Although an output schema exists, it is not included, and the description still lacks the domain context needed to call the tool correctly. With no field names, examples, or differentiation from the many sibling patch tools, the definition is not complete enough for reliable real-world invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and all four parameters are open, untyped objects, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds a useful high-level mapping—path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for required headers, body for the payload—but it names no actual keys, accepted values, or required fields, so an agent still cannot construct a correct request from this alone.

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 opening phrase 'Update attack surface domain' states a specific verb and resource, and the explicit `PATCH /w/company/attack_surface_domain` confirms the operation. This clearly distinguishes it from read, create, and delete siblings, though it does not name alternatives or add further scoping context.

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 when-to-use guidance: it does not contrast with `post_w_company_attack_surface_domain` or `get_r_company_attack_surface_domain`, and it does not state prerequisites such as needing an existing domain. The only usage cue is the PATCH verb, which implies but does not explain when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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