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 states the tool updates fields but does not disclose whether the update is destructive (overwrites or merges), success/failure responses, or authorization requirements. The note that fields are tenant-defined adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: announcing the action, providing prerequisite guidance, and parameter details. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 and no annotations. The description adequately covers prerequisites and parameter usage but lacks information about return values, error handling, or side effects. For a simple update tool, it is functional 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 coverage is 100% and the description adds a useful clarification about the id parameter (record id not company id). However, the updates parameter description largely mirrors the schema. The added value is marginal, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool updates a company site configuration record, with a specific verb ('update') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_get_company_site_configuration and autotask_update_company by focusing on site configuration records.

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 callers to first retrieve the current configuration using autotask_get_company_site_configuration to discover field names, and warns to use the site configuration record id, not the company id. It does not explicitly list alternatives but the prerequisite is clear.

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