Update Company Office

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses partial-update behavior, multipart/form-data requirements for logo uploads, ISO-3166 constraints for country/state codes, return value ('Returns the modified company office'), and detailed error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is exemplary transparency.

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 somewhat long but well-structured with bold headers and each sentence provides necessary context for the tool's complexity. It avoids fluff, though a more concise lead could improve scannability.

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 covers prerequisites, partial update semantics, error handling, special content-type cases, and return values. Given the nested office object and no output schema, this provides an agent enough context to correctly invoke the tool and interpret results.

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%, but the description adds meaning by specifying ISO-3166 Alpha-2 for country_code/state_code, explaining the office[logo] file upload pattern, and clarifying that omitted fields are unchanged. This goes beyond the schema's generic office object description.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Updates an Office associated to a Company.' It is distinguishable from siblings (list, create, show, delete) by the 'Updates' action, and the endpoint PATCH /rest/v1.0/offices/{id} reinforces the specific 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 advises 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' and explicitly tells the agent to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first.' While it does not name sibling alternatives like create or delete, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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