crm_create_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains (since no output schema exists). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just four words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new CRM object') and contains no wasted words. While this brevity contributes to clarity, it also leads to underspecification in other dimensions.

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's complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'CRM object' is, how to use the parameters, what happens after creation, or how this tool relates to its many siblings. For a mutation tool with significant parameter complexity and no structured documentation support, the description provides inadequate context for effective use.

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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (objectType, properties, associations) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'objectType' values mean, what 'properties' should contain, or how 'associations' work. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 CRM object' states the verb ('Create') and resource ('CRM object'), making the purpose clear at a basic level. However, it's vague about what constitutes a 'CRM object' and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., crm_create_company, crm_create_contact, crm_batch_create_objects). The description lacks specificity about the scope of objects it can create.

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. With numerous sibling tools like crm_create_company, crm_create_contact, and crm_batch_create_objects, there's no indication of when this generic 'create object' tool is preferred over the more specific ones or the batch version. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are mentioned.

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