Update Concierge Parameters

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

Annotations declare not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open world. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and returns the modified object, providing moderate behavioral context. No contradiction with 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 relatively concise but contains slight redundancy (first two sentences repeat the same idea). It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes endpoint info, which is helpful. Could be tighter.

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's simplicity (3 params, simple update), the description covers purpose, partial update, return value, and required param. No output schema exists, so noting the return object is useful. Lacks error/permission details but acceptable for this complexity.

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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description confirms required parameters and partial update behavior but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (update) and the resource (Concierge parameters / Company Settings), with endpoint and return behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools among siblings, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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 Company Settings' but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over other update tools (e.g., for different company settings) or any exclusions. No alternatives or when-not-to-use information.

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