autotask_update_company_site_configuration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the set of available fields is tenant-defined, which is a key behavioral trait. It also implies the tool is a mutation (update), which is clear. However, it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, reversible, or what happens on partial failures, slightly reducing transparency.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: (1) states the action, (2) provides critical prerequisite, (3) specifies the parameters. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity with nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, prerequisites, parameter usage, and tenant-specific nature. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (id and updates), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that updates object keys are tenant-specific and must be discovered via another tool, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 'Update fields on a company site configuration record', using a specific verb (update) and resource (company site configuration). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing a specific discovery tool (autotask_get_company_site_configuration) and clarifying it uses a site configuration record ID, not a company ID.

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 explicitly tells callers to first call autotask_get_company_site_configuration to discover available fields and current values. It also clarifies to pass site configuration record id (not company id) and an updates object, providing clear prerequisites and usage instructions.

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