patch_w_company_backup_software

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update backup software' and describes where to place parameters. There is no mention of side effects, whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, rate limits, or what kind of update semantics apply (e.g., partial vs. full replacement). This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and endpoint are front-loaded, and the parameter instructions are compactly delivered. Each phrase adds useful information without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description covers the HTTP method, endpoint, and parameter placement, which is the core need for invoking the tool. However, it omits specifics like which route IDs are valid, what filters are available, what headers may be required, and what the body should contain. These details are left to the agent to infer, making it minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient for correct 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by specifying the role of each parameter group: 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, any required request headers in headers, and the request payload in body.' This provides a clear mapping that the bare schema (which only defines generic object types) lacks. However, it does not detail specific fields or formats for each group, so it is not a full replacement for detailed schema documentation.

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 action ('Update backup software') and the HTTP endpoint ('Calls PATCH /w/company/backup_software'). This distinguishes it from sibling GET, POST, and DELETE operations for the same resource. It could be more explicit about what 'update' means in contrast to 'create' (POST), but the verb and endpoint make it unambiguous.

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 strongly implies when to use this tool (when updating backup software) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like post_w_company_backup_software or delete_d_company_backup_software_id. There is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though the parameter routing instructions help situate the user. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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