crm_batch_update_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, whether updates are atomic or partial, what happens on errors (e.g., partial failures), rate limits, or response format. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to the purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity of a batch update tool with 1 parameter (but deeply nested structure), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on usage, error handling, permissions, and response expectations. While concise, it fails to provide the necessary context for safe and effective tool invocation in a CRM system.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'multiple companies' but doesn't explain the 'inputs' array structure, the required 'id' and 'properties' fields, or the meaning of nested properties like 'lifecyclestage'. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving key semantics unclear (e.g., what 'properties' encompasses, format expectations).

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 ('Update multiple companies') and resource ('companies') with the batch operation context ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from individual update tools like 'crm_update_company' by specifying the batch nature, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch update tools like 'crm_batch_update_contacts' or 'crm_batch_update_objects' beyond the company focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., company IDs required), compare it to single-company updates ('crm_update_company') or other batch updates (e.g., 'crm_batch_update_contacts'), or specify use cases like bulk data corrections. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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