update_companyChange selected fields on an existing company record in the CRM. Only provided fields are changed, enabling targeted edits without overwriting other data.
Update fields on an existing company. Only provided fields are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| website | No | ||
| industry | No | ||
| companyId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses partial-update semantics ('only provided fields are changed'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authorization requirements, whether changes are reversible, collision handling, or the response shape for a mutation 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?
Two short sentences with no waste; the update scope and partial-update behavior are front-loaded.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. It lacks permission context, return behavior, and parameter documentation that an agent needs to call it 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 schema documents no parameter meaning. The description only implies that fields are updatable and that omissions are left unchanged, but never identifies the parameters (name, website, industry, companyId) or their formats and constraints.
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?
States a clear verb (update) and resource (company), and the second sentence clarifies partial-update semantics. It does not explicitly differentiate from create_company or update_contact beyond the resource name, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this versus create_company or the sibling update tools, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or the need for an existing company ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.