Set a company's products

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

Annotations provide key traits (idempotent, not read-only, not destructive), and the description adds behavioral details: replacement and deduplication. It confirms idempotency by noting replacing the list has the same effect repeatedly. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then additional context. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, replacement behavior, deduplication, and downstream use (filtering in list_companies). For a 3-parameter set operation with no output schema, it is fairly complete, though it could mention the effect of an empty array or success indication.

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 67%, with only two of three parameters (company, products) described in the schema and none in the description. The missing 'project' parameter lacks description entirely, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it 'records which products a company uses/owns', specifying the verb (record/set) and resource (company's products). It distinguishes from siblings like add_product and remove_product by noting it replaces the list and is de-duplicated.

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 explicitly says 'replaces the list', indicating it is for full replacement rather than additive operations. It also provides context on surfacing and filtering via list_companies, but stops short of explicitly naming additive alternatives, relying on implicit contrast.

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