dealdesk.patch_company_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: deletion is unsupported and updatedAt should be fetched beforehand (implying concurrency control), which is more than most peers offer. However it omits permissions/auth requirements, whether the update is partial or full, and what happens when expectedUpdatedAt is stale.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite, then the hard constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is wasted.

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, no output schema, and 6 parameters at 17% coverage, the description is thin but not empty: it covers the sourcing workflow and the delete limitation. The unstated behavior of expectedUpdatedAt and the patch-vs-replace semantics leave an agent with real gaps before calling it.

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 17% (only projectId is documented), so the description must compensate. It references noteId and updatedAt but only as values to fetch via get_company, never explaining expectedUpdatedAt's concurrency semantics, the title/text relationship, or companyId. Most of the six parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 and resource ('Update an existing company note'), which cleanly separates it from add_company_note and patch_contact_note/patch_card_note by resource. It is clear without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling note-patch tools.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ('Prefer get_company first for noteId and updatedAt') and a boundary condition ('Delete is not available through MCP'). It tells the agent how to source required values, but stops short of naming the alternative tools (add_company_note vs patch_company_note) for the create-vs-update decision.

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