patch_w_company_credentials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only mentions the HTTP method and parameter placement; it doesn't disclose that this is a mutation (PATCH implies, but doesn't state, partial updates), potential side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens on failure. It doesn't describe the response or error behavior beyond the endpoint.

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 sentence of about 35 words, which is appropriately concise. It front-loads the purpose ('Update credential') and then explains parameter placement. There's no fluff or repetition, each clause adds specific guidance on where to put each parameter. However, it could be more structured by separating the purpose from the parameter instructions, but overall it's efficient.

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 the output schema exists)Skip? No, the output schema exists but the description doesn't need to explain return values; however, the tool has 4 parameters, all optional, with 0% schema coverage. The description is too sparse to enable correct invocation: it fails to specify required route IDs, acceptable query parameters, expected headers, or body structure. An agent would struggle to construct a valid request without additional documentation. The description is incomplete for a potentially complex credential update operation.

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% and parameters are generic (body, query, headers, path_params) with no specifics. The description does add some semantic value by mapping these: route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, request headers in headers, payload in body. However, it doesn't explain what 'filters' or 'pagination' mean in this context, nor what the body payload should contain. Since coverage is 0%, the description must compensate heavily but it only provides high-level placement, leaving the agent guessing about actual values.

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 it updates credentials via a PATCH endpoint and specifies the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_r_company_credentials or post_w_company_credentials by the verb 'Update' and the HTTP method 'PATCH', so an agent can understand the operation without opening schemas.

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 basic context (update credentials, HTTP method) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like post_w_company_credentials or delete_d_company_credentials_id. It doesn't mention prerequisites, required permissions, or when a partial update is appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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