crm_create_company_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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 4 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, it's structurally efficient with every word serving the basic purpose statement.

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), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a company property is, how it's used, what the parameters control, or what happens after creation. For a creation tool with significant configuration options, this minimal description leaves too much unexplained.

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?

The description provides zero information about any of the 11 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what parameters like 'type', 'fieldType', 'options', or 'hasUniqueValue' mean or how they should be used. This leaves all parameter semantics undocumented.

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' clearly states the action (create) and resource (company property), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like crm_create_contact_property or crm_create_lead_property, nor does it specify what a 'company property' entails beyond the basic verb+resource pairing.

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 description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when defining custom fields for companies), or sibling tools like crm_get_company_properties for retrieval. Usage is implied only by the tool name, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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