crm_create_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether validation is strict or permissive, what happens on duplicate data, or what the response contains. The mention of 'validated properties' adds minimal context about input validation but lacks details on validation rules or error handling.

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 at just 6 words, front-loading the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place with no wasted verbiage, though 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?

For a creation tool with complex nested parameters (2 parameters with deep object/array structures), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets created, how validation works, what the response looks like, or provide any operational context needed for effective tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (one required, one optional with complex nested structure), the description adds almost no semantic value. It mentions 'validated properties' which hints at the 'properties' parameter but doesn't explain what validation entails or describe the 'associations' parameter at all. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new company'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'crm_batch_create_companies' or 'crm_create_contact', which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.

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 like batch creation tools or other CRM creation tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparative context with sibling tools.

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