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 mentions 'Create' implying a mutation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with minimal content, which could be seen as under-specified rather than optimally structured for clarity.

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 (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it inadequate for effective agent use in this 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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the three parameters (objectType, properties, associations), their meanings, or how they interact. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a CRM object and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like crm_create_company, crm_create_contact, or crm_batch_create_objects, making it vague in comparison.

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., companies, contacts) or batch operations, the description fails to indicate appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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