crm_update_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether updates are idempotent, error handling, or what happens to unspecified properties. The mention of 'validated properties' hints at validation but lacks specifics.

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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'validated' means, what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it differs from similar update tools. The agent lacks critical context for proper usage.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'validated properties' which loosely relates to the 'properties' parameter but doesn't explain what validation means or provide any details about the 'companyId' parameter. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's structure.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing company'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_update_contact or crm_update_lead, which have similar update patterns for different CRM entities.

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 like crm_batch_update_companies or crm_update_object. It mentions 'validated properties' but doesn't explain what validation entails or any prerequisites for successful updates.

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