Set your business details

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only write, and the description adds real context beyond them: the write lands in a shared profile also used by the invoice server, so a change here has cross-tool side effects. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of saying whether unspecified fields are preserved or wiped on a partial write.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is stored and immediately followed by the cross-server consequence. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 17-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two things hardest to infer: what the fields mean in aggregate and that the profile is shared with the invoice server. The remaining gap — merge-vs-replace behavior on a partial update — is meaningful but narrower than what is already covered.

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% and each of the 17 properties is documented in-schema (including alias handling and the email/phone 'only if supplied' rule), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only groups fields into categories and does not add format or precedence semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('store') plus the exact resource (sender details on proposals, contracts, letters) and the config categories it covers (currency, VAT, terms, prefix). It also disambiguates against the sibling invoice_business_set by stating both write the SAME shared profile, so an agent knows they are aliases rather than distinct stores.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement (use when setting sender/branding defaults), and the shared-profile note usefully answers whether invoice_business_set must also be called. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no mention of prerequisites or how this relates to proposal_create/contract_create that consume the profile.

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