Update company

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with a write operation. It adds the useful payload instruction to include accountId and fields to change, but does not explain partial-update semantics, permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted text, and the WRITE label plus operation name are front-loaded. The payload guidance follows immediately.

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 write tool with an open nested object payload and no output schema, the definition is workable but thin. It covers the basic invocation shape but omits whether updates are partial or full, what fields are permitted, and what the tool returns.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema only defines an open-ended company object with no documented properties. The description adds meaning by naming accountId and fields to change, but it does not identify valid field names or payload format, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update a company via UpdateCompany, and labels it as a WRITE operation. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_company or get_company.

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?

It says to pass a company object with accountId and fields to change, which is invocation guidance rather than usage guidance. It does not explain when to use this instead of create_company, get_company, or other update tools, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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