mautic_update_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds real value by disclosing the dry-run preview behavior tied to confirm, but it says nothing about partial-update semantics (are omitted fields preserved?), side effects on linked contacts, or failure modes for a 19-parameter mutation.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint, then the confirm mechanic. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint path is somewhat redundant for an agent that only needs the semantics.

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 tool with 19 parameters, a nested object, no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin. It never explains how the loose `fields` map relates to the explicit company* parameters, which is the central ambiguity an agent must resolve before calling it.

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 only 5%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters and largely does not. It mentions confirm and its dry-run meaning, but the 17 company field parameters and the meaningful `fields` (additionalProperties) and `score` parameters are left entirely unexplained by both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update a company") and even names the endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like mautic_create_company or mautic_get_company, but the verb is unambiguous enough that the gap is minor.

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 line "Omit confirm for a dry-run preview" is genuine usage guidance for the write-safety flow, telling the agent how to preview versus execute. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., create vs update, add_contact_to_company) or on prerequisites such as needing an existing company_id.

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