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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that the payload is checked against the model's active schema, so mismatched fields will be rejected — but stops short of describing failure behavior or that repeat calls create duplicates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing usage guidance rather than a sign of tight scoping.

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 takes a free-form nested `data` object whose valid field names depend on a per-model schema, and the description does not explain how an agent discovers that schema before calling. For a non-idempotent open-world mutation with no output schema, that is a significant omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents model, data and waitlist, including the waitlist overflow behavior. The description only links `model` to schema validation, adding marginal meaning beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ("Creates") and resource ("one record") and adds the qualifying detail that the record is validated against the model's active schema. The phrase "one record" implicitly separates it from crm_bulk_create, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to prefer crm_create over crm_bulk_create for single rows, or to use crm_update when the record already exists. Nor does it say how to obtain the active schema (crm_list_models / crm_get_menu) that the validation step depends on.

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