Update a company

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint false (update operation) and destructiveHint false. The description adds the authorization class, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency (hinted false), or other traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 short (two sentences) and easy to parse, but is overly terse. It earns its place for conciseness but sacrifices critical parameter and usage details.

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 the complexity of the input schema (many nested fields), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of body fields, the effects of updating different properties, or what the output schema contains. The annotations and output schema do not compensate for this lack of context.

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, the description needed to explain the parameters but only mentions the endpoint. The body field has many properties (name, status, etc.) with no descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 'Update a company' with the HTTP method and endpoint, making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes from read and delete siblings but does not explicitly differentiate from the similar branding patch tool.

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 the authorization class ('board_or_agent'), but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the branding-specific patch. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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