crm_create_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 - just 4 words. While this is efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. There's no wasted language, but it lacks necessary detail. The structure is simple and front-loaded with the core action, but doesn't provide enough substance.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (including complex nested objects), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what CRM objects are, what properties they can have, how associations work, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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 3 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides. With 3 parameters (including complex nested objects), this leaves the agent with no guidance on what 'objectType', 'properties', or 'associations' mean or how to use them.

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 states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new CRM object'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'crm_create_company', 'crm_create_contact', etc., which are more specific versions of object creation. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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. With many sibling tools for creating specific CRM objects (e.g., 'crm_create_company', 'crm_create_contact'), the description doesn't explain if this is a generic fallback, when to prefer it over specific tools, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage contexts.

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