Update Company Checklist Template

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

The description adds some value by noting that 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update), which extends beyond the annotations. However, annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, idempotency (annotation false), or potential 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 concise at three sentences, with the first sentence stating the purpose, the second providing usage guidance, and the third listing required parameters and API endpoint. It is fairly efficient, though the structure could be improved by separating the confusing 'Inspections' phrasing.

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 mentions the return value (modified object on success) but lacks details on error handling, the structure of list_template (schema allows any properties), and the multipart requirement for attachments. Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description reiterates the required parameters but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the structure of list_template. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool updates a Company Checklist Template, using a specific verb and resource. However, it confusingly mentions 'update an existing Inspections' instead of 'Checklist Template,' which could mislead an agent about the target resource. Despite this, the purpose distinguishes it from create and list 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?

The description offers minimal guidance, only stating 'Use this to update an existing Inspections' and listing required parameters. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_company_checklist_template or other update tools, nor does it provide context on when not to use it.

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