formation_set_election83bSetElection83b persists the 83(b) election snapshot on the formation. Owner-scoped; called after PDF generation + signature envelope creation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record | Yes | ||
| formationId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: 'Owner-scoped' communicates access control, and the sequencing statement indicates the tool is not the first step. It does not disclose idempotency, overwrite behavior, or error conditions for this mutation operation, which would be valuable for a 'persists' action.
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 purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to the understanding of the tool's action and its place in the workflow.
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 description provides essential workflow context and an output schema is present, so return values are covered. However, given the complexity of the large nested record, the description could mention preconditions, idempotency, and how this tool relates to other election83b operations (e.g., record_election83b_filing) to be fully 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 description identifies the 'record' parameter as an '83(b) election snapshot' and hints at related fields through the PDF/signature context, but it does not explain any of the many nested fields within the record object. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more for the lack of parameter-level guidance.
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 'persists' and the resource '83(b) election snapshot on the formation', making the tool's function specific and distinct from sibling tools like formation_get_election83b_prefill and formation_record_election83b_filing. The mention of being called after PDF generation and signature envelope creation further distinguishes it as a later-step mutation.
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 provides clear usage context: 'Owner-scoped' indicates permission requirements, and 'called after PDF generation + signature envelope creation' specifies the sequence in the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.