crm_batch_update_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if updates are atomic or partial, what happens on partial failures, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 batch mutation tool with complex nested parameters (array of objects with required fields), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the parameter structure, behavioral characteristics, error handling, or expected outcomes. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'multiple companies' but provides no information about the required 'inputs' parameter structure, what 'id' represents, what 'properties' can contain, or the meaning of specific fields like 'lifecyclestage'. The agent must rely entirely on the raw schema without semantic guidance.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('multiple companies'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from single-company update tools by specifying 'multiple companies in a single request', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch update tools like crm_batch_update_contacts or crm_batch_update_leads.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when batch updates are preferable to individual updates, or how it differs from other batch update tools for different CRM objects (contacts, leads, objects). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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