kaiten_update_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is an update but does not explain whether it is a partial or full update, what fields are affected beyond name, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a single parameter, though it achieves brevity at the cost of behavioral context captured in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not mention what 'company information' can be updated, whether the update is partial, what the response contains, or any constraints. The simple schema partially compensates, but the tool still needs more context for safe and correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'name' is already documented as 'Company name'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient. 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 action ('Update') and the resource ('current company information'), so an agent can infer the purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like kaiten_get_company or kaiten_update_company_group, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself or list what 'information' entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kaiten_get_company, kaiten_update_company_group, or other update tools. The description only implies a general update context and provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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