autotask_update_company_site_configuration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that fields are tenant-defined (dynamic schema) and implies mutation via 'Update'. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., partial vs full replacement), authorization requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. The advice to 'call get first' hints at a need to know current state but does not fully clarify the update semantics.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value: the action verb, the resource, the special property (tenant-defined), and the prerequisite. No wasted text.

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?

The tool has no output schema, requiring the description to provide more behavioral context. While it gives a key prerequisite and notes tenant-defined fields, it lacks details on the return value (e.g., nothing, updated object, success flag), error conditions, idempotency, or whether the update is partial or full. For a mutation tool with dynamic fields, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context 'Fields are tenant-defined; call get first', which reinforces the schema's description of 'updates' as tenant-specific. No additional parameter-specific details are provided beyond what the schema already offers.

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') and the resource ('company site configuration'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_get_company_site_configuration (read) and other update tools for different entities (e.g., autotask_update_company). The mention of tenant-defined fields further specifies the scope.

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 explicitly advises to 'call get first', providing a clear prerequisite and usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but the instruction is actionable and helps the agent avoid errors.

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