Set a company's products

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the operation replaces the list and de-duplicates, which aligns with idempotentHint=true and provides practical details like surfacing on the company record. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose and behavior, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word is necessary.

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?

Given the simple tool (3 required params, no output schema), the description covers the essential: replacement behavior, deduplication, and downstream usability. It could mention prerequisites (existing company/project) but is otherwise 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?

The input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (company and products). The description's line 'Full product list... (replaces any existing)' echoes the schema but adds no new detail. The 'project' parameter lacks any description in both schema and description, limiting added value.

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 verb 'Record' and resource 'products a company uses/owns', specifies it replaces the list and de-duplicates, and distinguishes from siblings like add_product or list_companies by explaining the replacement behavior and how the data is surfaced.

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 conveys that the tool replaces the full product list, implying it's for bulk setting rather than incremental additions. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or provide when-not guidance, missing full differentiation from sibling tools like add_product and remove_product.

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