set_default_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose an authorization requirement (employer role), which is valuable. However, for a mutation it does not say whether it overwrites an existing default, what side effects occur, or that changes take effect immediately.

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 the purpose front-loaded followed by the role prerequisite and parameter note. Nothing redundant, though it is terse enough to leave some gaps.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the role requirement plus parameter note cover the basics. For a mutation with no annotations, however, it should disclose side effects such as whether an existing default is replaced.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does name and gloss the single parameter as the enterprise entity ID. This adds real meaning beyond the bare 'company_id: string' in the schema, though it does not clarify format or constraints.

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 names a specific verb+resource — '指定默认公司/企业主体' (set the default company/entity) — which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like create_company and list_companies by intent. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 states a prerequisite ('需要 employer 角色') which usefully scopes who can use it, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives such as list_companies or create_company. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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