autotask_update_company_site_configuration

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'Fields are tenant-defined', revealing that the updates object is flexible. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or potential errors.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. Every word adds value—the action, the flexibility note, and the prerequisite. No 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 tool's simplicity and good schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose and key usage. No output schema exists, so return values are not covered, but that's acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by indicating the id comes from get and that fields are tenant-defined, which clarifies the nature of the updates parameter beyond the schema.

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 'Update company site configuration', which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from autotask_get_company_site_configuration and other siblings by its purpose.

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 a key usage guideline: 'call get first', which instructs the agent to retrieve the current configuration before updating. This is helpful, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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