crm_batch_create_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates companies but doesn't mention required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, error handling for partial failures, rate limits, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a self-explanatory name and follows front-loading principles by stating the core functionality immediately.

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 complex batch creation tool with 1 parameter (but deeply nested structure), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the input format, behavioral constraints, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'multiple companies' which hints at an array input, but doesn't explain the 'inputs' parameter structure, required fields, or the meaning of nested properties like 'associations'. It adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from the tool name.

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 multiple companies') and resource ('companies'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from single-company creation tools like 'crm_create_company' by specifying 'in a single request', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch creation tools like 'crm_batch_create_contacts'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to single-company creation or other batch operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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