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 full burden. It mentions that fields are tenant-defined, but fails to disclose other key behaviors such as idempotency, side effects, permission requirements, or response structure. This is insufficient 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides critical context. Ideal conciseness.

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?

The description is somewhat complete for a simple update, but lacks details about output (e.g., does it return the updated config?), error handling, or validation. Given no output schema and dynamic fields, more guidance would be beneficial.

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 covers 100% of parameters. The description adds value by explaining that 'updates' object is dynamic and tenant-specific, and that 'id' should be obtained from a get call. This goes beyond the raw schema.

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 company site configuration') and distinguishes it from siblings like get_company_site_configuration and other update tools for different entities. The mention of tenant-defined fields adds specificity.

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 advises to 'call get first', indicating prerequisite knowledge. It implies the tool is for modifying existing configurations, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare with other update tools.

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