Update company branding

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

Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds the authorization class and HTTP method, providing some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or behavior related to openWorldHint=true.

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 very short (three lines) and front-loaded with the title. However, it lacks informative content beyond technical details, making it minimally acceptable.

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 (nested objects, 0% schema coverage), the description does not explain parameters, response, or PATCH semantics. It omits crucial context like notification of partial update and ignores openWorldHint implications.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about parameters (body with name, brandColor, etc., path with companyId). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which is insufficient for understanding semantics.

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 company branding' and provides the HTTP method and path, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is specific about the resource (branding) and distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_patch_companies_by_company_id which update company info.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description only includes technical details (HTTP method, path, auth class) without any 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.