build_company

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

The description only mentions the cost (1 credit). It does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, or what happens after the build starts (e.g., returns a build ID). With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 (two sentences) with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by the cost. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

The description omits important details such as the return value (e.g., build ID) and any setup prerequisites. Given the simple input schema and no output schema, the description should explain what the user receives after initiating the build.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide ('What to build or change' and 'Target an existing company you own').

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('a Founden build'), making the tool's action clear. The sibling tools (get_build, message_build, stop_build) imply distinct operations, and 'build_company' unambiguously indicates initiating a build.

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 its siblings (e.g., get_build, stop_build). The cost mention is a usage constraint but not a decision criterion for tool selection.

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