Update Company Office

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds significant behavioral context: it details the special case for uploading logos via multipart/form-data, specifies that country and state codes must follow ISO-3166 Alpha-2, and notes that only supplied fields are changed. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent understand important constraints and 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 relatively long and contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Use this to update an existing Company Settings'). It is structured with headers for special topics (logo, country codes), but the repetition and inclusion of endpoint details that are less relevant for selection reduce conciseness. It could be more succinct.

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 no output schema, the description mentions it returns the modified object. It covers important contextual details like multipart upload requirement and ISO code validation. However, it does not explain the full structure of the office object or error conditions, leaving some gaps. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a mutation tool with a nested object parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that the office parameter can include a logo file (requiring multipart/form-data) and that country_code and state_code must conform to ISO-3166 Alpha-2. This provides constraints and format requirements not present in the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 it updates an Office associated to a Company, and the title matches. The action and resource are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling create/delete tools. However, there is a minor inconsistency where it refers to 'Company Settings' instead of 'Office', which slightly detracts from clarity.

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 indicates this tool is used for updating an existing company settings (office) and only changes supplied fields. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like create_company_office, leaving the agent to infer based on the name. The implied usage is reasonable but lacks explicit guidance.

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