companies_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that core ANAF fields are immutable (a meaningful behavioral constraint: attempting to change them will fail or be ignored). However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a full replacement update (PUT semantics) or partial patch (PATCH semantics), what happens to unspecified fields, or any authorization requirements. The 'update' verb implies mutation but no side-effect details are given.

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 a single efficient paragraph that front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the critical constraint about immutable ANAF data. It's compact with no filler or redundancy. Could arguably be slightly more structured, but the two-sentence form is clean and delivers high-value information early.

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 settings-update tool with 13 well-documented parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the most critical context (which fields are editable vs synced). The main gap is not describing update semantics (full vs partial) or listing which specific fields are editable beyond the broad categories. But given the schema's strong parameter documentation and the absence of nested objects/output requirements, this is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds marginal value by grouping editable fields into categories ('contact info, bank details, sync settings') and clarifying that uuid is the required identifier. However, it doesn't add semantic detail beyond the schema's existing per-parameter descriptions, and with high coverage the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool updates configuration settings for a company, using a specific verb ('update') and resource ('company configuration settings'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying scope: it updates settings but cannot modify core ANAF-synced data. This differentiates it somewhat from companies_create and companies_delete, though it shares the 'update' verb with many other *_update tools.

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 provides useful context about what CANNOT be modified (core ANAF data), which serves as a partial exclusion criterion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when this tool should be used versus alternatives like companies_toggle_sync or companies_set_active. The editable-fields guidance is helpful but there's no explicit 'use this when' statement or mention of alternatives.

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