Update a company's name, domain, industry, address, or other details by ID to keep CRM records accurate and current.
Update a company's details — name, domain, industry, address, or any other field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Company UUID | |
| name | No | Updated company name | |
| size | No | Updated size | |
| phone | No | Updated phone | |
| domain | No | Updated domain | |
| website | No | Updated website URL | |
| industry | No | Updated industry | |
| description | No | Updated description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses none of the behavior that matters for a mutation: whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (partial vs full replace), what happens on an unknown id, or whether any field is immutable. The claim of "any other field" also misrepresents the write surface, which the schema caps at seven 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?
A single front-loaded sentence is well sized, but the trailing "or any other field" is both wasted text and incorrect, and no semantic information follows the field list.
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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state partial-update semantics and whether a return payload or validation errors come back. Neither is present, leaving key call-shaping questions unanswered.
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 id, name, size, phone, domain, website, industry, and description; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond echoing a partial field list, and its inclusion of "address" actively conflicts with the schema.
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 verb+resource pair (update a company) is unambiguous and distinct from create_company/get_company. However, the enumerated fields include "address", which does not exist in the schema, and the catch-all "or any other field" is false given additionalProperties: false, so the scope statement is partially misleading.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus the many siblings that also mutate records (conduyt_update_contact, conduyt_create_company, conduyt_update_deal). No prerequisites such as needing an existing company id or any permission requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.