update_company_details

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 but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a partial or complete update, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens when null values are provided, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information that would help an agent use the tool correctly. A single sentence with basic context would be more valuable than this minimal statement.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does beyond the obvious, no guidance on usage, no parameter context, and no behavioral transparency. This leaves an agent with insufficient information to properly invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't mention what fields can be updated (name, address, tax information, etc.), their purposes, or relationships. The schema shows many fields but the description offers zero semantic context to help an agent understand what each parameter means or how to use them effectively.

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 'Update company information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_company_details'. It provides the verb 'update' and resource 'company information', but lacks specificity about what aspects of company information can be updated or how this differs from other company-related tools like 'get_company_details' or 'update_client'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that deal with company data (get_company_details, get_company_balance, get_company_tax_statistics) and client data (update_client), but the description offers no differentiation or context for when this specific update tool should be selected.

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