crm_create_company_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') without addressing critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions. No structural issues are present.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, 5 required, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what a company property is, how it's used, what the parameters mean, or what to expect upon creation. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, meaning none of the 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about any parameters, their purposes, or how they interact (e.g., the relationship between 'type' and 'fieldType', or what 'options' array contains). This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 a new company property' restates the tool name (crm_create_company_property) almost verbatim, making it tautological. While it identifies the verb ('create') and resource ('company property'), it lacks specificity about what a 'company property' entails or how it differs from similar tools like crm_create_contact_property or crm_create_lead_property among the siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes related tools like crm_get_company_properties and crm_create_contact_property, but the description offers no context on prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate scenarios for creating a company property versus other property types.

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