Update Company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating and potentially destructive operation. The description adds return behavior ('Returns a compact summary with the company slug') and prerequisites. However, it does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved or reset during an update, which is important for a mutation tool. With annotations covering safety signals, the additional value is modest, warranting a 3.

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 three sentences long, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each sentence contributes necessary information: what it does, what is required, how to resolve IDs, and what is returned. No filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (19 parameters, mutation, annotations, output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core operation, required fields, resolution steps, and return type. The only notable gap is the lack of clarity on partial update semantics (whether unspecified fields are left unchanged), but the rich schema and annotations reduce the burden on the description.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the role of company_slug as the identifier, identifying updated_by as the user performing the update, and explicitly instructing to resolve user IDs and custom field IDs via other tools. This goes beyond what the schema notes, enriching the semantic understanding.

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: 'Updates one existing Recruit CRM company by company_slug.' The verb 'updates' is specific, the resource 'Recruit CRM company' is identified, and the unique identifier 'company_slug' is specified. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_company, list_companies, search_companies, and get_company_details.

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 provides clear context by stating it updates one existing company and lists required parameters: 'Requires company_slug and updated_by.' It also gives practical guidance for parameter preparation: 'Resolve user IDs with list_users and custom field IDs with list_custom_fields for entity_type=companies.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or mention when-not-to-use, so a 4 is appropriate.

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