Update company settings, including name and subdomain, using natural language commands.
Update company settings (name, subdomain, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Company name | |
| subdomain | No | Company subdomain |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds no extra context such as permissions, side effects, or behavior on partial updates. It provides minimal value beyond the annotation flags.
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, efficient sentence. The inclusion of 'etc.' is slightly vague, but overall it is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 simple update tool with two optional parameters, the description is adequate but does not clarify that parameters are optional or what happens when none are provided. No output schema exists, so return value is not described. Slightly under-specified.
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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The description merely echoes 'name, subdomain' without adding constraints, examples, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (company settings), with concrete examples (name, subdomain). It differentiates from sibling tools like yougile_get_company and other update_* tools.
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that yougile_get_company is for reading, nor does it specify when an update is appropriate. The usage context is entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.