patch_w_company_discovery_settings

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 only states 'Update discovery setting' and the HTTP method, without disclosing whether it's a partial update, what fields are typically modified, auth requirements, side effects, or behavior if the resource doesn't exist. The mention of 'filters and pagination in query' is ambiguous for a PATCH, adding uncertainty about whether it updates one or multiple resources. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter mapping is stated efficiently. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool has 4 optional generic parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description tells the agent what data goes where but lacks detail about the payload structure, update semantics, or preconditions. For a PATCH endpoint, this is borderline adequate; an agent might need more to construct a valid body, but the endpoint name and standard REST patterns provide some inference. The description is not completely inadequate but leaves gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and generic 'anyOf' objects for all parameters. The description compensates by explaining the role of each parameter: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for required headers, and body for the payload. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify the content of the body or query (e.g., which fields are updatable).

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?

Clearly states the action ('Update discovery setting'), the resource ('discovery settings'), and the exact HTTP endpoint (`PATCH /w/company/discovery_settings`). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_r_company_discovery_settings (read), post_w_company_discovery_settings (create), and delete_d_company_discovery_settings_id (delete).

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?

Provides clear guidance on where to put each parameter type (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers, payload in body). This gives context on how to structure the call, though it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings (e.g., 'use this to modify existing settings'). The intended usage is implied by the verb 'update' and the endpoint.

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