update_company

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

The description adds 'Only send the fields you want to change' which is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations. It does not elaborate on authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and the partial update guidance, earning each sentence's place.

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 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient for an update operation. It could mention response behavior or idempotency, but annotations cover safety sufficiently, so overall complete enough.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the partial update semantics, which is valuable. However, it does not emphasize the required id field, though it is implied.

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 action 'Update' and the resource 'an existing company', which distinguishes it from siblings like create_company and delete_company. It is specific and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 phrase 'Only send the fields you want to change' implies a partial update (PATCH-like) and guides the agent to send only changed fields. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among many sibling tools for other resources.

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