Update/extend a company agreement

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

Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description adds no further behavioral details such as permission requirements, error handling, or side effects beyond the basic update functionality. It does not contradict the 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes examples. While very concise, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability, but it avoids unnecessary verbiage.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least mention required fields (project, company, id) and return value. It does not discuss what the tool returns upon success or failure, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 only 13% (only the 'id' parameter is described). The description lists example fields ('expiresAt', 'status', 'seats', 'term', 'value') but does not provide detailed semantics, formats, or allowed values for any parameter, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 specifies the action ('Update a company contract/license by id') and provides concrete examples such as extending a license or changing status, seats, term, or value. This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_company_agreement and remove_company_agreement.

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 implies usage for modifying existing agreements but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_company_agreement or remove_company_agreement. No exclusion criteria or context-based guidance is provided.

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