update_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is an update (mutation), but it omits critical behavioral details such as the requirement for 'confirmed' to be true for the update to succeed, and it doesn't mention idempotency behavior or what happens if 'confirmed' is false. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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, using only two short sentences with no fluff. However, the second sentence about company_id is somewhat redundant given the schema, and the space could have been used to add the crucial 'confirmed' gate, making it efficient but not optimal in content utilization.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is a bare minimum. It fails to mention essential contextual details like the confirmation flag requirement, the merge behavior for 'context', or any side effects. This leaves the agent without critical information needed for correct invocation, especially for a mutation tool.

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 all 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds only 'You must provide the company_id,' which merely restates the required parameter and does not add meaning beyond the schema. It does not highlight the 'confirmed' parameter's role or the 'idempotency_key' behavior, but the schema already documents these.

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's action ('Update an existing company's fields') with a specific verb and resource, and 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or elaborate on scope beyond 'fields'.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need to update an existing company's fields. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like create_company or delete_company, nor any mention of prerequisites like the 'confirmed' flag being required for the update to take effect.

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