Update Project Region

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description confirms it updates and returns the modified object, but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth needs, rate limits). 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 concise with 5 sentences, each adding information. The front-loaded purpose is clear. The endpoint detail is extra but acceptable. Could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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?

For a simple update tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, partial update behavior, and even the API endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update) and highlights required parameters (company_id, id), which is already in schema but reinforced.

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 a Project Region, with the verb 'update' and the resource 'Project Region'. However, there is a slight inconsistency when it refers to 'Company Settings' instead of 'Project Region'. The name and title already distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_project_regions'.

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 does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context from sibling tools (create, list, delete) implies usage, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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