teamleader_tag_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses that missing tags are created and that existing tags are preserved. It does not cover error cases or return values, but the core side effects of this mutation are clearly communicated.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the two important behavioral constraints are packed into concise parenthetical and follow-up clauses.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with complete schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what happens to missing tags, and what happens to existing tags. It lacks an output/return note, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward enough that this is a minor omission.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only marginal semantic value by implying 'tags' is plural and that existing tags are not replaced, which maps naturally to the array parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('a company') and object ('one or more tags'). It also distinguishes the operation from the sibling untag_company and tag_contact by making both the action and target explicit.

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 intended use is clear: apply tags to a company. The description does not explicitly say 'use this instead of teamleader_tag_contact', but the target resource is stated unambiguously and the behavior of merging rather than overwriting gives practical context for when this is appropriate.

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