associations_create_association

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate those. However, it adds no behavioral context: it does not disclose what happens if a duplicate key is used, whether the operation is reversible, what validation occurs on the object keys, or whether any side effects (e.g., notifications) are triggered. The description is silent, leaving the agent with only the schema's parameter hints.

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?

At two words, the description is extremely concise but not usefully so. It front-loads nothing substantive; it is an under-specification rather than a well-structured summary. A good description would mention the purpose (linking two objects) and perhaps the key constraint. This is too sparse to serve as an agent-facing guide.

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?

With 6 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and nested objects, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what constitutes an 'association' in this system, how to structure the firstObjectKey/secondObjectKey (e.g., what keys are expected), what labels 'custom_objects.children' and 'contact' represent, or how the tool behaves in edge cases. An agent cannot correctly construct a valid request using only this description.

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 provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), including meaning for 'key' and labels. The description itself contributes no additional parameter semantics. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The schema descriptions are terse (e.g., 'First Objects Key' and 'First Objects Association Label'), but they do convey basic intent, so a 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 'Create Association' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name. It names the action and resource but gives no specification of what an 'association' is, which objects it links, or how it differs from sibling tools like associations_create_relation, associations_update_association, or associations_delete_association. Without reading the schema, an agent cannot differentiate this tool from other association tools.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., object schemas must exist), typical scenarios, or any conditions under which a different tool (like associations_get_association_by_id or associations_create_relation) would be more appropriate. No exclusions or recommendations are given.

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