post_w_company_pii_scan_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a create operation and names the endpoint, but it does not describe side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens on conflict. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, 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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds information about how to construct the request. It is concise and structured, though it could be slightly more organized with explicit labels for each parameter.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'pii scan setting' is, what fields the body should contain, what the response looks like, or any constraints. The output schema exists but the description still needs to convey the resource semantics and request construction details.

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%, and the schema parameters are generic containers (body, query, headers, path_params) with no property-level documentation. The description adds minimal meaning by saying 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers' and 'request payload in body.' This is somewhat helpful but does not compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 and resource: 'Create pii scan setting' and explicitly names the HTTP endpoint `POST /w/company/pii_scan_settings`. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_r_company_pii_scan_settings` and `patch_w_company_pii_scan_settings`, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 by instructing where to place route IDs, filters, headers, and payload. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `patch_w_company_pii_scan_settings` or `get_r_company_pii_scan_settings`. The context is clear for a generic POST operation but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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