Create a new system setting in Creatio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It reveals the underlying request classes (InsertSysSettingRequest, PostSysSettingsValues), which adds transparency beyond a simple 'creates' statement. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, error behavior, rate limits, or idempotency.

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 concise at two sentences, with the first sentence capturing the core action and the second providing a reference for further details. It is efficiently structured with no wasted words, though the guide reference could be integrated into the first sentence for better flow.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, many parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, error handling, or success criteria. The reference to a guide partially mitigates but does not fully compensate for the lack of output schema and behavioral details.

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 coverage is high (many parameters have descriptions in the schema itself). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only points to an external guide for valueTypeName. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as description does not need to 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 clearly states the tool creates a brand-new system setting and names the specific request class (InsertSysSettingRequest) and optional value-setting service (PostSysSettingsValues). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set-sys-settings-value' (which updates existing settings) by specifying 'brand-new' and the request type.

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 implies use for creating new system settings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'update-sys-setting-definition' or 'set-sys-settings-value'. It references a guide for valueTypeName details but provides no exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions.

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