formation_append_conversation_entryAppendConversationEntry atomically appends one or more chat entries to the formation's conversation_history. Owner-scoped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entries | No | ||
| formationId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as non-destructive and not open-world, and the description adds valuable context by stating the operation is atomic and owner-scoped. It does not, however, describe failure modes, idempotency, or return value details, though the output schema may cover returns.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word carries meaning. It efficiently conveys the core operation, atomicity, and scope without redundancy.
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 a simple operation with an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the essentials: what is appended, where, and ownership scope. It lacks explicit mention of the required formationId parameter and constraints like min/max items, but these are available in the schema. Overall, it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.
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 50% (only formationId has a description). The description adds that entries are 'chat entries' and that one or more can be appended, but it does not explain the individual fields (role, tool, content, timestamp) or the UUID wrapper structure. This partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves field semantics to the agent's inference.
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 tool appends chat entries to the formation's conversation_history, using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes itself from other formation_* tools by focusing on appending conversation entries.
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 mentions 'Owner-scoped' as a permission constraint but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or list exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.