Yougile Company

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that write/webhook operations require admin access and that webhooks are event subscriptions, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects, confirmation requirements, or response/return behavior for operations.

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 layout is compact and scannable: a one-line resource summary, a bullet list of operations with access, and a direct pointer to help. There is little wasted text, though the operation labels are terse.

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 multi-operation facade with no output schema and no per-operation parameter details in the description. It relies entirely on the external yougile_help tool to supply what an agent needs to call most operations, so it is not self-contained or complete enough for direct invocation.

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?

Input schema already documents operation enum, params object, and confirm flag; at 67% coverage the schema is the main source. The description adds no operation-specific parameter semantics—it merely defers to yougile_help('company.<operation>'), so the agent still cannot invoke an operation correctly without an extra lookup.

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 'Company details and webhooks' and enumerates five concrete operations with access levels, making the resource scope clear. It distinguishes by resource name from sibling tools (projects, tasks, users), though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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?

Access labels ([read]/[admin]) give some context about who can call operations, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The only usage hint is 'Call yougile_help(...)' for parameters, which is parameter lookup, not usage selection.

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