boond_companies_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing company', which signals mutation but does not clarify whether this is a partial update or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, whether the id is required to reference an existing record, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. For a tool with seven parameters and no annotations, this is too little content to be considered appropriately sized.

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?

This is a mutating tool with seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage in the description. The description does not mention the required id, update semantics, parameter effects, or return behavior, so it is inadequate for an agent attempting to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it does not. It adds nothing beyond the schema's property names and types. The description never mentions the required id, the type enum, or the contacts array, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the raw JSON 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing company'. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools boond_companies_create, boond_companies_get, and boond_companies_search because it identifies the update operation on the company entity. However, it does not mention which fields can be updated, so it lacks full scope detail.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_companies_create, boond_companies_get, or boond_companies_search. The description implies the obvious use case but does not state when this tool should be preferred or when it should not be used.

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