objects_create_object_record

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, implying a non-idempotent write operation, but the description adds no behavioral details. It does not disclose that each call creates a new record, potential side effects, or response behavior, so it adds no value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely short, which is concise but fails to be informative. It is under-specified, providing no detail on resource type, behavior, or usage. While not verbose, it does not earn its place as it adds almost no 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?

For a tool with two required parameters, a complex nested body, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information on return values, error conditions, or operational context, leaving agents to guess how to construct valid calls.

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%, with both parameters documented (schemaKey and body). The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the score is at the baseline of 3 for high coverage. However, the body parameter's description is vague ('Request body as defined by the HighLevel API') and the description does not compensate.

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 Record' is a near-tautology of the tool name, providing only a verb and generic resource without specifying what kind of record or object it creates. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like objects_create_custom_object_schema, as no scope or context is given.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools (e.g., objects_get_record_by_id, objects_update_object_record), leaving the agent without context for selection.

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