Attio Simple MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a mutation operation (implied by 'update'), uses partial updates ('Only provided fields will be updated; omitted fields remain unchanged'), and specifies the return value ('Returns the updated company record'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the core purpose, behavioral detail on partial updates, and usage guidance with alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the mutation nature, 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, partial update behavior, domain management alternatives, and return value. However, it could improve by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid record_id) or error scenarios, leaving minor gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the updatable fields (name, description, LinkedIn URL) and mentioning the record_id requirement, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Update an existing company'), the target resource ('in Attio CRM by record ID'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_company and get_company. It specifies the updatable fields (name, description, LinkedIn URL), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('update an existing company by record ID') and when not to use it for related tasks ('To manage domains, use add_company_domain and remove_company_domain tools instead'). It also implicitly distinguishes it from create_company for new records and get_company for reading.

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