Update sidebar preferences for company

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive. The description adds the HTTP method (PUT) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which provides slightly more depth but does not disclose full side effects or preconditions.

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 concise with two sentences. However, conciseness sacrifices necessary details like parameter semantics and usage context. It could include more information without being verbose.

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 a PUT operation that likely replaces an entire list, the description lacks information about whether the update is additive or replaces, what the output contains, and any important constraints (e.g., maximum array size). The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 does not explain what 'orderedIds' represents or how it affects sidebar preferences. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a PUT operation.

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 the action ('Update sidebar preferences for company'), specifying verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'pc_put_sidebar_preferences_me', which may have a different scope, missing an opportunity to distinguish.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., GET to read preferences, or other PUT endpoints). No prerequisites or contextual cues for appropriate usage.

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