patch_w_integration_company_mappings

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Update' and restates the HTTP method. It does not mention partial-update semantics, side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or what happens if the mapping does not exist.

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?

Two sentences deliver the endpoint and the routing of every parameter with no filler. The action is front-loaded and every clause 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?

For a mutating endpoint with no annotations and an empty request schema, the description is incomplete: it does not say what fields the body should contain, what route IDs are valid, or which query filters/pagination options exist. The output schema does not help an agent construct the request.

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 provides zero descriptions, so the description compensates by assigning a clear role to each parameter: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers, and payload in body. It stops short of enumerating actual field names or formats, but it is far more useful than the empty schema.

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 opens with a clear action and resource ('Update company mapping') and pins it to the exact HTTP endpoint (PATCH /w/integration/company_mappings). This differentiates it from sibling get/post/delete operations on the same resource.

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 verb 'Update' and the PATCH method imply this is the tool to use when modifying an existing company mapping, and the description tells where each argument belongs. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives such as POST for creation or DELETE for removal, so the guidance is only implicit.

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