post_w_company_custom_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only explains how to structure the request (path_params, query, headers, body) but does not mention side effects, permissions required, idempotency, return values, or error behavior. For a write operation (POST), this 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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the purpose before detailing request construction. There is no fluff or redundancy beyond the minor overlap of 'Create custom profile' and the endpoint mention. Every word earns its place.

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 has four free-form parameters and an output schema, the description should provide more context about the body content, authentication requirements, or expected response. It only describes where to place data, not what data to include (e.g., profile fields) or what the API returns. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the request without additional documentation.

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, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of each free-form parameter: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for request headers, and body for the payload. This gives agents meaningful guidance that the schemas lack, though it stops short of specifying exact field names or structures.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'custom profile', and gives the exact endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_r_company_custom_profile (read), patch_w_company_custom_profile (update), and delete_d_company_custom_profile_id (delete). The action and target are unmistakable.

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 implies usage for creating a new custom profile via the verb 'Create' and the POST method, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., patch for updates) or provide any exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit routing guidance beyond what is obvious from the name.

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