manage_companies

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

The description enumerates all actions and specifies that create requires company_data with name, which adds practical behavioral detail. It also states the return format ('dict: Result of the operation including success status and data'), going beyond the annotations. The destructiveHint is consistent with the delete action, and no contradictions are present.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a summary, then a brief context line, followed by a clean action list and return type. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 (8 parameters, multiple actions) and the presence of a full schema and output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, actions, and return format. It lacks explicit details about cascading effects of deletion, but the destructiveHint annotation compensates for that gap.

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 provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including descriptions for action, company_id, company_data, and list filters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, merely restating that create requires company_data and list supports pagination/filtering, which the schema already communicates.

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 opens with 'Manage Snipe-IT companies with CRUD operations,' clearly identifying the resource (companies) and the operations (CRUD). The action list further details each operation, and the contextual note about segmentation distinguishes this from sibling tools managing other resource types.

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?

It explains when companies are useful ('multi-tenant installations or tracking assets by subsidiary'), providing clear context for usage. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource-specific scope makes the intended use unambiguous.

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