PATCH /companies/{id}

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds only "part of" (partial update), but says nothing about what happens to omitted fields, the confirm-write flow, required permissions, or irreversibility beyond the annotation.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ("Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation companiesid-2") is boilerplate provenance that gives the agent nothing actionable.

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 destructive nested-body mutation with no output schema and no annotation-independent explanation of permissions or write-confirmation, the description is too thin. It does not tell the agent what the body may contain beyond the single required name, nor what a successful response looks like.

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 67%: id and confirm are documented in the schema, but the nested body object and its required name field carry no description. The description does not name any updatable field, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource ("Updates a part of a company's details") and the PATCH path distinguishes it from the GET/DELETE/PUT company siblings (companiesid, companiesid_1, companiesid_3). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is only implicit in the HTTP method.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never says how this differs from the sibling full-update (PUT) endpoint, nor that it is intended for partial edits of only some fields.

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