post_w_company_edr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only describes mechanical request routing (where to place IDs, filters, headers, body) and never discloses creation side effects, requirements, or response behavior — it is a write operation with zero behavioral context.

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 the purpose front-loaded, and the param-routing guidance is packed efficiently. Very little waste, though it borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description adequately covers where parameters go but leaves the actual EDR payload fields, required headers, and query structure unspecified, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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%, so the description must compensate for the four unstructured params. It does add real value by mapping each parameter to its HTTP role: route IDs to path_params, filters/pagination to query, headers to headers, and payload to body. But it stops short of specifying what the body or query should actually contain.

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 clear verb+resource ('Create edr') and names the exact endpoint (POST /w/company/edr). However, 'edr' is cryptic and there is no differentiation from siblings like patch_w_company_edr or get_r_company_edr, leaving the agent to infer that 'post_w_' means create-new.

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?

Usage context is only implied by the verb 'Create' versus the patch/delete siblings. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to pick — e.g., no guidance that patch_w_company_edr is for updates.

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