pdf_template_config_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' signals a mutation operation, and the scope ('for the current company') is clear. However, it doesn't disclose whether updates are incremental (merge) vs. full overwrite, whether all 9 parameters are optional and only provided ones change (likely given 0 required params), or what validation errors might occur. For a config update tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update the PDF template configuration') and then enumerates the customization scope efficiently. No redundant filler or repetition of schema details. It earns its length, though it could arguably be slightly more compact.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, all documented in schema. There's no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. Given no annotations, the description could note partial-update semantics or idempotency, but for a config-update tool with fully documented parameters, this is reasonably complete. It falls short of full completeness because it doesn't clarify whether the update is a merge or replace of existing config.

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% — every one of the 9 parameters has a description in the schema. The description adds a general framing of categories (design, colors, fonts, logo, bank info, footer, custom CSS) but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already documents. The showVatInRon param in particular has a detailed legal rationale in the schema itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Update the PDF template configuration for the current company' with a specific verb (update), a clear resource (PDF template config), and a comprehensive list of customizable elements (design, colors, fonts, logo, bank info, footer, custom CSS). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pdf_template_config_get (read), pdf_template_config_templates (list templates), and pdf_template_config_preview (preview).

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 states it applies to 'the current company' and lists what can be customized, providing clear scope. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this vs. the related config tools (get, templates, preview) or mention any exclusions or alternatives. The context is implied but not explicitly bounded.

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