company_tick

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

The description mentions persistence and approval behavior ('persists; approvals are requested, never granted'), but these are vague and unexplained. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or potential failures, leaving the agent without a clear model of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 very short, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity. The structure is disjointed—starting with an obscure action, then jumping to a parenthetical, then to vague operational details—and the final 'JSON.' is an incomplete sentence fragment.

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 that the schema has no parameter descriptions and the output schema is not shown, the description is the only context available. It fails to explain what each input means, what the output looks like, or how the tool fits into the broader workflow, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description references 'action_id + receipt' which are not actual parameters in the schema (project_id, bundle_json, inputs_json, now). It provides no explanation for the real parameters, and the mention of unrelated inputs adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 uses vague terms like 'Tick a company's cadence' and 'engines' fences' without clarifying what these mean in practice. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from the many other company_* siblings, nor does it explain the intended effect of the operation.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no conditions, scenarios, or examples. The phrase 'approvals are requested, never granted' is ambiguous and does not provide actionable usage guidance.

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