Update Company Vendor

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing partial-update behavior, success return value, and failure scenarios with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404). It also notes the ISO-3166 constraint for country/state codes. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 multi-paragraph but each section serves a purpose: purpose, ISO-3166 constraint, partial-update rule, id resolution, return/error behavior, required params, and API endpoint. It is structurally organized and not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers success return, common error payloads, parameter requirements, and prerequisite resolution. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret responses.

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 value by clarifying the required parameter set (id, company_id, vendor) and the semantic of sending only changed fields. It also highlights nested country_code/state_code validation not visible in the top-level schema.

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 'Update a specified Company Vendor,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_company_vendor, list_company_vendors, and show_company_vendor by the update action. The endpoint reference further clarifies the operation.

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?

It instructs to resolve id with the matching list tool first, and explains that omitted fields retain current values—a clear usage convention for partial updates. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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