Reactivate Company Vendor

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is expected. Description confirms it updates records and returns the modified object, adding some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens if the vendor is already active, or any side effects.

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 composed of 4 sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage hint, required params, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main action. One sentence about 'only the supplied fields are changed' is slightly redundant but not detrimental.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, optional view, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose, required fields, and return type. It includes API details for reference. No major gaps are present.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description only repeats the required parameters (company_id, id) and does not add new meaning or usage details beyond the 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 title and description clearly state the tool reactivates a company vendor. It uses the verb 'reactivate' and specifies the resource 'Company Vendor'. Among siblings, there are similar reactivate tools for different entities (e.g., user, project vendor), so the tool is distinct.

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 mentions 'Use this to update existing Directory records' which is vague and doesn't specify when to use reactivation vs other methods. It does not guide on alternatives like bulk_activation or reactivate_project_vendor. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

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