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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only assert non-destructive, non-open-world, idempotent. The description explains the idempotency contract (fresh key per record; retry with same key returns the first result), pipeline placement rules, V2 pricing for new deals, that productIds are unpriced references, that omitted MRR stays unknown, and the return shape {id, updatedAt}. It also carries a prompt-injection caution about untrusted CRM field values.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the describe_object prerequisite, and every sentence conveys a distinct constraint rather than filler. It is nonetheless a dense, long paragraph with several rules packed per sentence, which costs some scannability.

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?

For a nested, multi-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, placement rules, pricing semantics, ownership effects, exclusions, idempotency behavior, and the return value. Little an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates strongly for data and idempotencyKey, spelling out deriveable constraints (pipelineId/pipelineStageId coupling, commercialPricing field exclusions, custom fields under customFields). It adds essentially nothing for workspaceId, relying on the schema's own description, and never fully defines the objectType identifier set beyond pointing at describe_object.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates one record of any type you may create') and immediately scopes it against sibling operations with 'It changes no existing record'. An agent can distinguish this from update_record, delete_record, and create_custom_object without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'call describe_object first for its fields', use assign_record_owner to change ownership, use set_contact_account to link a contact to a company. It also states when-to and when-not for pipeline fields (send both or neither, open stage only, never won/lost), which is genuine selection guidance.

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