post_w_company_attack_surface_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a creating/POST operation, but it does not mention side effects, required authentication, idempotency, response behavior, or what happens on success or failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose and endpoint are front-loaded. The wording is slightly awkward ('Create attack surface domain Calls') and the structure is terse, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 create tool with zero annotations and a schema that describes only generic container objects, the description leaves major gaps: what an 'attack surface domain' is, which path route IDs are required, what filters/pagination parameters exist, what headers are required, and what the body should contain. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but not with invoking the tool correctly.

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 0% and the schema properties are generic objects with no field names, so the description's mapping is valuable: route IDs to path_params, filters/pagination to query, headers to headers, and payload to body. However, it stops at category-level guidance and never identifies specific parameter names, formats, or required fields, so it only partially compensates for the empty 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 states a specific action ('Create attack surface domain') and names the exact HTTP endpoint (`POST /w/company/attack_surface_domain`). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling GET, PATCH, and DELETE tools for the same resource, even without naming them.

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 verb 'Create' and the POST method imply when this tool should be used, and the parameter-placement guidance is helpful. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the related patch/get/delete siblings or states when not to use it, leaving the choice largely to inference.

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