autotask_update_company

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether the update is destructive. It adds minor behavioral nuance (billing address separation) but fails to convey important behavioral traits like idempotency or scope of changes.

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, front‐loaded with the purpose, then a specific parameter detail. No extraneous words. Each sentence 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?

Despite 32 parameters and no output schema, the description covers only two aspects (invoiceTemplateID and billing address). It omits prerequisites (e.g., company id must exist), constraints, typical use cases, and return value expectations, leaving the agent underprepared.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the description adds concrete value by clarifying that invoiceTemplateID acts as a payment‐terms selector with example IDs (103=Due on Receipt, 104=NET 30) and by noting billing address fields are separate from regular address. This goes beyond the schema descriptions for those fields.

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 it updates a company record, distinguishing it from create_company (adds new) and search_companies (reads). The specific notes about invoiceTemplateID and billing address fields add purpose clarity, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description gives hints about parameter behavior (payment terms, address separation) but does not help the agent decide when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_company.

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