Update Project Owner Type

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open world. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object, which provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 concise with a few sentences, front-loading purpose and usage. It includes API endpoint info which is somewhat redundant but not overly verbose.

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 tool is a simple update operation. With full schema coverage and minimal annotations, the description provides key behavioral details (returns modified object). However, the mention of 'Company Settings' is inconsistent and could confuse. No output schema, so description doesn't need to explain return values, but it does cover the return.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The description reiterates required parameters (company_id, id) but adds no new semantic meaning to the parameters. Baseline score of 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 it updates the specified Project Owner Type, with verb 'Update' and resource 'Project Owner Type'. It is specific, but the mention of 'Company Settings' is slightly confusing and could mislead about the resource being updated.

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 (only the supplied fields are changed)', which gives basic usage context but does not specify when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Among many update siblings, this is adequate but not explicit.

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