hires_create_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Create a client company and link ownership context' without disclosing permissions, idempotency, side effects, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the core action and context without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and every word contributes value.

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 8 parameters, a nested logo object, no output schema, and no annotations. While the schema documents all parameters, the description does not explain return values or special behaviors. The high-level purpose is clear, but missing details like response format or constraints make it only minimally 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 input schema fully covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a client company' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'link ownership context' to distinguish it from other company-related tools. It is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings like hires_list_companies, hires_update_company, and hires_delete_company.

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 phrase 'Typical entrypoint for multi-tenant onboarding' provides context for when to use the tool, implying it is for new client creation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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