crm_create_association

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'create', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, returns the created association, or has side effects. For a tool that creates data relationships with 5 required parameters, this lack of context 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 a single, grammatically correct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create an association'), making it easy to parse. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (5 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the CRM context, association types, or what happens post-creation. For a mutation tool that links business objects, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially with siblings like batch operations and 'crm_get_associations' available.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'fromObjectType'/'toObjectType' enums represent, how 'associationTypes' defines the relationship, or that IDs reference existing objects. With 5 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide essential semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 an association between two objects' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('association'), but it's vague about what an 'association' means in this CRM context. It doesn't specify that this links CRM entities like companies, contacts, deals, etc., which the schema reveals through enum values. While it distinguishes from obvious non-association siblings like 'crm_create_company', it doesn't differentiate from the batch version 'crm_batch_create_associations'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing objects to associate), contrast with batch operations (like 'crm_batch_create_associations'), or indicate typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the schema and sibling names alone.

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