company

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description confirms deletable operations but adds limited new behavioral insight (e.g., return format as JSON error string). It does not detail side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits beyond the annotation basics.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, operations, args, returns) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While comprehensive, it is slightly verbose; each sentence contributes value, but some repetition could be trimmed (e.g., listing all operations in both text and args).

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 complexity (11 parameters, multiple operations), the description covers all key aspects: operation list, parameter explanations, return format. It lacks details on error propagation or required parameter combinations beyond the schema, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and operation-specific usage (e.g., pk for company/supplier/manufacturer ID, company_id for list endpoints, search for filtering). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 domain (Supplier, manufacturer, and customer management in InvenTree) and enumerates all supported operations (list, get, create, update, delete). This provides a specific verb-resource mapping and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on other domains like parts or orders.

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 lists what the tool can do but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose company over stock or purchase_order). Usage is implied through the domain context, but no exclusions or when-not scenarios are given.

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