Create Asset

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions association with company and contact but does not explain error behavior (e.g., invalid company_id), side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is idempotent. As a creation tool, mutation is implied, but lack of detail limits 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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key purpose. While it could include more detail, it is appropriately concise for a straightforward creation tool, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, required permissions, error handling, or the scope of association. For a creation tool, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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 input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying the roles of company_id and contact_id as the association context. However, it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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), the resource (Asset), and provides context that it's serviceable customer equipment in Zoho FSM, associated with a company and optionally a contact. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_asset or create_company.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_work_order or update_asset). No mention of prerequisites, such as having a company_id that already exists. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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