dealdesk.patch_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the optimistic-concurrency model (expectedRevision). But it omits the conflict/stale-revision failure behavior, whether this is a genuine partial (patch) update, and any auth/permission context.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the required precondition is surfaced immediately after the action. Efficient and appropriately sized for what it attempts.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description is far too sparse - it neither enumerates the patchable fields nor explains partial-update semantics or failure modes.

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 only 10% (just projectId), so the description must compensate for 10 parameters - and it explains only expectedRevision's purpose. The remaining update fields (legalName, displayName, fields, emailDomains, etc.) are entirely undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (company), and the 'patch' naming plus description distinguishes it from create_company/get_company/list_companies. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the action is 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 gives a real precondition - expectedRevision must come from get_company - which tells the agent to call get_company first. However it offers no when-to-use guidance versus create_company or other update paths, so usage context is only partially established.

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