teamleader_update_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a mutation via 'update' but does not explain partial-update semantics, what happens to fields not provided, or whether tags are replaced. The schema's tag description notes overwrite behavior, but the tool description itself is silent on all behavioral traits.

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 a single, concise sentence, which is appropriately short. However, it is under-specified and essentially restates the tool name, so the sentence does not earn its place by adding valuable context.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain update semantics, prerequisites, or expected response behavior. The schema documents parameters, but the description alone would not be enough for an agent to call this tool correctly in context.

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% with each parameter having a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it neither exceeds nor falls below this baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Update') and resource ('existing company'), which clearly distinguishes it from create/delete and from updates to other resources like contacts. However, it adds little beyond the tool name and does not mention updatable fields, though those are documented in the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing company ID) or the distinction between updating a company and using tag/untag tools for tag modifications. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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