Create/Update Company (Dalux)

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

The description adds auth context ('Requires write access') which is not covered by annotations. However, annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation behavior is implied. The description does not elaborate on partial vs full updates or side effects, providing only marginal added value beyond annotations.

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 sentences long, with no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning: the verb, resource, scope, actions, and access requirement are front-loaded.

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 (5 parameters, nested body, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits details on required relationships (e.g., companyId for updates, projectId for project scope), the expected structure of the body, and return values. The tool's open-world hint suggests flexibility, but the description does not guide the agent on valid inputs.

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. It does not explain any parameters, such as the meaning of 'scope', 'action', 'body', 'companyId', or 'projectId'. The body is a nested object with additionalProperties, but no guidance on its structure is provided, leaving agents to infer meaning from names alone.

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 ('Add' or 'update'), the resource ('company'), and the scope ('project' or 'account-wide company catalog'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying company CRUD operations, which are not covered by other tools like dalux_list_companies.

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 does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with sibling tools such as dalux_list_companies for listing. The only contextual hint is 'Requires write access', but no exclusions or conditions.

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