territory_update_tracked_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral facts beyond the schema: the 10-company cap and automatic domain/ticker resolution. However, it leaves unstated what happens on exceeding the cap, whether an authenticated territory session is required, and what the response looks like.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the core operation and the most important constraint, then adds a valuable automatic-resolution note. No filler 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?

For a two-parameter tool with a complete schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what actions are possible, the size limit, and input handling. It does not mention authentication/session requirements or failure modes, but the tool is simple enough that the remaining gaps are minor.

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 schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics on top: it clarifies the 10-company limit for the companies array and explains that domain and ticker inputs are automatically resolved, which is not stated in the 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 names a specific verb (add/remove/replace) and a specific resource (monitored companies in your territory), plus a key constraint (max 10). This clearly differentiates it from sibling read/search tools like territory_get_tracked_companies and territory_search_companies.

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 makes it clear this tool is for modifying the monitored-company list, while the sibling names indicate read/search alternatives. It doesn't explicitly state 'use X instead when...', so it stops short of a full 5, but the intended usage is clear.

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