patch_w_company_edr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a PATCH operation (implying partial update) but does not state whether the update is partial or full replacement, what fields are updatable, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the route ID does not exist, or what the response contains. The description is purely mechanical (where to put parameters) and adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP verb already visible in the tool name.

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 reasonable length and is front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. However, it is somewhat repetitive with the endpoint path already in the tool name, and the mechanical parameter-placement instructions could be more compactly expressed.

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 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a complex sibling set (including get_r_company_edr, post_w_company_edr, delete_d_company_edr_id), the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what a valid request looks like, what the response will be, or how this update differs from the POST create operation. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it or explain the semantics of the update.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description does explain the high-level role of each parameter container (path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for request headers, body for payload), which is some value. However, it does not specify which route IDs are valid, what filters or pagination parameters are supported, what headers are required, or what the body schema should look like. The body parameter is completely untyped (anyOf {} or null), so the agent has no idea what payload to construct.

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 states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'edr Calls' with the endpoint path, which is clear enough to identify the operation. However, it does not explain what an EDR call is or what updating it entails, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling patch_w_company_edr-like tools (e.g., patch_w_company_companies, patch_w_company_credentials) beyond the resource name. The endpoint path is helpful but the description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with HTTP routing details.

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. It does not mention that this is the PATCH counterpart to get_r_company_edr or post_w_company_edr, nor does it explain what conditions warrant updating an EDR call. The only usage-related information is the generic instruction to put route IDs in path_params, which is a mechanical detail rather than a decision guideline.

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