company_cap_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Build' suggests a mutation (creating a cap table), but there is no mention of side effects, whether the operation is reversible, permissions required, or any safety implications. The agent has no idea if this is read-only or writes state.

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 sentence with no fluff, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is too sparse – it omits essential information about parameters and usage, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output represents, what the inputs mean, or when to invoke it. The output schema exists, so that covers return values, but the input semantics and usage context are missing. The description leaves too many gaps for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'fundraise plan' and 'persisted rounds and grants' which hints at bundle_json contents, but does not explain project_id, now, engine, operation, entity_ref, or payload_json. The two required parameters are only partially clarified, and the optional ones are completely 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 states a specific action ('Build the sealed cap table') and identifies the resource ('sealed cap table') and the inputs ('fundraise plan and every persisted round and grant'). This is clear and specific about what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling company_* tools like company_equity or company_fundraise, so the agent may not know when to choose this one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'from the bundle's fundraise plan' which implies a specific context, but does not explicitly state when to use it or what distinguishes it from similar company tools. No 'when not to use' or alternatives are given.

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