Update Company

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

The description discloses that Hudu applies a PUT, that supplied fields replace old values outright, and states 'Impact: Overwrites the supplied fields.' This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and fully aligns with them.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear warning about PUT behavior, and an impact statement. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

It covers the core operation, PUT semantics, and practical advice to read before appending. Given the 16 parameters and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete, though it could mention what the response contains or common error conditions.

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 50%, leaving several fields without descriptions. The description clarifies that only supplied fields are sent and that all fields except id are optional, which helps interpret parameter usage. However, it does not individually explain the many undocumented fields like address_line_1 or fax_number, so it only partially compensates.

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 begins with 'Update an existing company' and defines company as the top-level container, clearly distinguishing it from create, get, archive, and other update siblings. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly warns that only supplied fields are sent, explains the PUT semantics with full replacement, and advises reading the record first with hudu_get_company when appending. This gives concrete when-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative.

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