Set company access for a user (admin)

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds the HTTP method and authorization class, but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether setting company access overwrites existing access or simply adds to it. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the HTTP endpoint and authorization class. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 that this is a write operation with two required parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the body parameter works (overwrite vs. add), error scenarios, or the return value. The annotation provides some context, but the description should fill more gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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 the parameters. It does not explain that 'companyIds' is an array of UUIDs specifying which companies to grant access, nor does it describe the 'userId' parameter or any constraints. The description fails to add meaning beyond the raw 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 description clearly states 'Set company access for a user (admin)', which specifies the verb and resource. It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint, distinguishing it from the GET version (pc_get_admin_users_by_user_id_company_access). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other admin tools like promote/demote, though the purpose is clear.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the authorization class ('instance_admin') as a prerequisite but does not provide context for when to choose this over other admin user operations such as promoting or demoting administrative roles.

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