update_company_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies upsert semantics (existing note replaced based on title) but never states what happens to an existing note, whether write permission is required, or whether the operation is destructive. This is a significant gap 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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than over-verbose.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 2-required-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints that note_title acts as the identity key for the create-or-update behavior, but it says nothing about the content parameter, its length limits, or accepted formats.

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 gives a clear verb pair (create or update) and a specific resource (company notes) with enumerated note categories (policy, meeting, strategy, vision). It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as add_financial_record or add_employee, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus other company-data tools, nor any statement of prerequisites, ownership, or scope. The only usage hint is the implicit upsert implied by 'create or update', which is not elaborated.

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