teamleader_update_contact_company_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation mutates an existing link, but it doesn't explain whether company_id is an identifier or an updatable field, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the link does not exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately compact, though it could include more usage and behavior guidance without becoming verbose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits how the required company_id selects the existing link, whether changing it is allowed, and what outcomes or error behavior to expect, leaving important semantic gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates position and decision-maker but adds little beyond the schema; it does not clarify the role of company_id or provide additional format or default details.

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 operation ('Update') and the target resource ('existing contact–company link'), naming the specific fields (position, decision-maker flag). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like teamleader_link_contact_to_company and teamleader_update_contact, though it doesn't explicitly call them out.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as teamleader_link_contact_to_company, teamleader_unlink_contact_from_company, or teamleader_update_contact. The word 'existing' gives a minimal prerequisite, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative scenarios are provided.

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