Update company details

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Fields not passed are left as-is on LinkedIn' clarifies the partial-update semantics. The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description enriches transparency without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 rich input schema (100% coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential: what the tool updates and the partial-update behavior. No critical gaps remain for effective use.

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 100%, providing baseline 3, but the description adds crucial meaning: 'All arguments are optional; supply only the fields you want to change' clarifies how the nullable parameters and defaults should be interpreted. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource ('the page's website, industry, size bracket or specialties'), which precisely defines the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like company_read_page or company_edit_about by enumerating the exact fields it modifies.

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 clearly states the scope of use ('website, industry, size bracket or specialties') and provides partial update guidance ('All arguments are optional; supply only the fields you want to change'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the field list implicitly differentiates from siblings.

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