companies_update

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

Annotations already declare the mutation is idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the ANAF-sync constraint that silently rejects edits to CIF, registration number, VAT status and official address - valuable and non-obvious. It does not disclose partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared) or permission requirements, which is the main remaining behavioral risk for a 13-param PATCH-style tool.

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?

Two sentences, the mutation scope is stated first, and the constraining note follows immediately. No filler or restated title text.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknown (which fields cannot be changed) but leaves partial-update behavior and the effect of the required uuid implicit. The missing piece is narrow rather than structural.

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 coverage is 100%, so each of the 12 editable parameters is already documented, and the description's grouping (contact info, bank details, sync settings) only loosely maps onto them. It never mentions name, defaultCurrency, enabledModules, or the archive parameters, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb (update) and resource (company configuration settings), which separates it from companies_get/create/delete. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from companies_toggle_sync and companies_set_active by scoping the change to configuration fields, though it never names those siblings.

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 note about which fields are immutable gives clear implied guidance on when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit routing to alternatives like companies_toggle_sync (enable/disable sync) or companies_set_active, which overlap with the 'sync settings' it claims to own.

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