Update Company Upload

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destruction (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by specifying it's a partial update (only supplied fields changed) and that it returns the modified object. This provides helpful behavioral context beyond 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 four sentences and front-loaded with the action. It includes useful API details (version, endpoint). The first sentence is slightly redundant with the title, but overall it's clear and well-structured.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description adequately covers the update operation and return type ('modified object'). However, it lacks details about the 'segments' parameter and the response structure, which would be helpful for full understanding.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description redundantly lists required parameters but does not add new meaning to the 'segments' parameter (array). Minimal value added over the schema descriptions.

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 existing File Access & Storage records with a partial update (only supplied fields changed) and returns the modified object. It includes the API endpoint and version. However, it could better differentiate from sibling tools like create_company_upload or show_company_upload by explicitly stating it's for existing records only.

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 File Access & Storage records' and lists required parameters, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., for creation) or compare with alternatives like create_company_upload. More specific guidance would improve this dimension.

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