patch_w_company_pii_scan_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 identifies the operation as a PATCH (mutation) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, reversibility, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant 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?

Three short sentences with no unnecessary words. Purpose is front-loaded, and parameter placement is described compactly. The 'Calls PATCH' clause is slightly redundant with 'Update' but is not wasteful.

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 description is insufficient given the degenerate schema (all optional generic objects) and no annotations. It tells where to put things but not what constitutes valid values, especially the body payload for a PATCH operation. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing input semantics.

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 reassuringly, but the description maps each parameter container to its role: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for request headers, body for payload. This adds basic semantics, but it does not enumerate specific parameters or formats, leaving the agent guessing about required route IDs or body structure.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('pii scan setting'), and references the HTTP PATCH method. It is clear that this tool modifies an existing pii scan setting, and the verb distinguishes it from sibling get/post/delete tools. It loses a point because it does not explicitly describe what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields, effects).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that post_w_company_pii_scan_settings should be used for creating settings, or that this tool is for updating existing ones. The parameter placement instructions are about how to call, not when to select, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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