Update Company Action Plan Type

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

Annotations provide basic safety info. The description adds that the modified object is returned, which is helpful. No contradictory statements, but no deeper behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions) is disclosed.

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?

Three efficient sentences, no unnecessary words. Purpose, usage note, endpoint, and required fields are front-loaded. 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?

For a simple update tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essence: what it does, required params, and return value. Minor lack of detail on error handling or PATCH semantics, but acceptable given context.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal value for parameters. It repeats that company_id and id are required, but does not explain the 'active' field's meaning 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 description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'Company Action Plan Type'. It differentiates from sibling tools (create/delete) by specifying this is for updating an existing type. The mention of the API endpoint 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 says 'Use this to update an existing Action Plans' but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. It does not mention exclusions, making it adequate but not strong.

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