yougile_update_company

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), and the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., subdomain propagation), or any constraints beyond what annotations/schema provide.

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?

A single sentence with the verb front-loaded, efficiently listing typical fields. No wasted words or redundant restating of schema.

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 and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it omits any note about field optionality (though schema shows none required) and doesn't clarify the 'etc.' scope, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'etc.' is vague and potentially misleading given additionalProperties: false limits fields to name and subdomain, adding no real semantic value.

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 identifies the action ('update') and resource ('company settings'), explicitly naming fields like name and subdomain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only company-level update tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_company or 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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'update' and the resource 'company settings', but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., get_company for reading). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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