dealdesk.patch_company_note

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile. It usefully discloses that deletion is outside MCP and that noteId/expectedUpdatedAt come from get_company, hinting at optimistic concurrency. It never says what happens on a stale expectedUpdatedAt, whether the update is reversible, or what permissions are required.

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 and immediately followed by the prerequisite and the scope limit. No filler, though it is terse enough to leave gaps.

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 17% parameter coverage, the description covers the create/delete boundary but leaves conflict behavior, permissions, and most parameters unaddressed. Adequate but clearly incomplete.

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% across 6 parameters. The description adds meaning only for noteId and expectedUpdatedAt (via the get_company lookup); text, title, companyId, and projectId semantics remain 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 and resource: 'Update an existing company note.' The word 'existing' distinguishes it from the sibling add_company_note, and noteId/updatedAt tie it to the note entity. It stops short of explicitly naming add_company_note as the create-side alternative.

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?

'Prefer get_company first for noteId and updatedAt' gives a concrete prerequisite lookup, and 'Delete is not available through MCP' rules out an operation an agent might otherwise attempt. No explicit when-not guidance or sibling comparison beyond that.

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