crm_create_company_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It states 'Create' implies a write operation but omits critical details: whether this requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., affecting existing data), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves the agent uninformed about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It is front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 5 required), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not compensate for the missing structured data, failing to provide usage context, parameter explanations, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it inadequate for agent guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 11 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to explain what 'name', 'label', 'type', or other parameters mean, their formats, or how they interact. This is inadequate for a tool with many parameters, especially required ones.

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 'Create a new company property' restates the tool name (crm_create_company_property) with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('company property') but lacks detail on what a 'company property' entails or how it differs from similar tools like crm_create_contact_property or crm_create_lead_property, offering no sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), context for creation (e.g., during company setup), or comparisons to sibling tools like crm_get_company_properties or batch operations, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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