autotask_update_company_site_configuration

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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Update'), requires prerequisite data discovery, and handles tenant-specific fields. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, prerequisites, and parameter nuances. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects, authentication needs, or expected response structure to fully prepare an agent for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the purpose of the 'id' parameter (site configuration record ID from a specific sibling tool) and clarifying that 'updates' contains tenant-specific fields, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 fields') on a specific resource ('company site configuration record'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like autotask_update_company or autotask_update_project. It specifies the exact scope of what is being updated, avoiding ambiguity.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool: after first calling autotask_get_company_site_configuration to discover available fields and current values. It also provides a clear exclusion by noting that the id parameter should be the site configuration record id, not the company id, guiding proper usage.

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