snipeit_gen_companiesid_1Updates a company's details in Snipe-IT by ID, requiring the company name and a YES confirmation when write protection is enabled.
PUT /companies/{id}: Updates a company's details. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation companiesid-1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | company id | |
| body | No | ||
| confirm | No | Required when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES=true. Exact string "YES" to apply this write. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic update purpose. It does not explain what may be destructively changed, how the confirm gate works, or what permissions are required.
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 short and front-loads the operation and purpose effectively. The second sentence about being generated from the OpenAPI operation is extraneous but does not significantly harm clarity.
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?
The schema and annotations carry most of the safety and parameter details, including the destructive hint and confirm field. However, for a destructive nested-body update tool with many similar siblings, the description could provide more context about write confirmation and required body fields.
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 coverage is moderate at 67%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'company's details.' It does not clarify the required body.name, the company id path parameter, or the confirm='YES' write gate, leaving the nested body partially undocumented.
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 states a specific HTTP verb and resource: 'PUT /companies/{id}: Updates a company's details.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish this company-update endpoint from sibling company tools such as snipeit_gen_companiesid or snipeit_gen_companiesid_2.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states the operation and does not route the agent among the many sibling company endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.