Update Company Currency Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update via PATCH) and returns the modified object. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes some redundant details like the API path, but these do not detract significantly. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly trimmed.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it updates existing currency configuration, only supplied fields, returns modified object. It lacks error handling or permission details but is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions required parameter company_id and lists the other fields (currency_display, currency_iso_code, multicurrency_enabled) but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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's currency configuration by company ID, explicitly mentioning it updates only supplied fields. It distinguishes from creation by saying 'update an existing', and provides the endpoint. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies when to use it (update existing configuration) and contrasts with creation implicitly. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools like create_company_currency_configuration, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over get or delete.

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