post_w_company_discovery_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation via 'Create' but provides no details on side effects, authentication requirements, the nature of the response, or whether the operation overwrites existing settings. It only says 'any required request headers' without indicating which ones, leaving significant ambiguity about the behavior.

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. It front-loads the action and endpoint, then provides parameter placement in a clear order. It's appropriately concise for the information given.

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?

The description is insufficient for a create operation with four open-ended parameters and no annotations. It lacks details on required fields in the body, the expected structure of the payload, authentication requirements, and result details. While an output schema exists, the description should provide more domain context, especially given the low schema coverage.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does map each parameter group: path_params for route IDs, query for filters/pagination, headers for headers, and body for the payload. This is helpful at a high level, but it doesn't specify the shape of the body, the exact filter keys, or the format of route IDs. It adds some meaning but lacks the detail needed for correct invocation.

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 discovery setting') and the endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_r_company_discovery_settings and patch_w_company_discovery_settings by specifying 'Create', so an agent can tell it apart without looking at others. However, it doesn't explain what a discovery setting is or what fields it contains, which would help a broader understanding.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the patch or delete variants. It doesn't mention prerequisites, idempotency, or any conditions that would lead an agent to choose this over other tools. It only provides call mechanics, not use-case context.

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