accelo_create_affiliation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says what permissions are needed, what happens if the contact is already affiliated with the company (duplicate handling), or what the call returns. For a write operation this is a significant gap.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the purpose is the first sentence, and the argument list is easy to scan. Slight redundancy in repeating each parameter name alongside its gloss, but nothing wasteful enough to hurt.

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 create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the parameter coverage is adequate, but the description says nothing about mutation-side behavior (duplicate handling, permissions, idempotency) or return shape. It is minimally complete for invocation but thin on the write semantics an agent needs.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does list all seven parameters with a short gloss for each, including explicit (required) markers on company_id and contact_id. The glosses for email/phone/mobile largely restate the names, but the required/optional split and the framing add real value.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (affiliation) and adds a clarifying gloss — 'link a contact to a company' — that makes the domain concept unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings like update_affiliation or delete_affiliation, though it never names them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. use update_affiliation for existing links), and no prerequisites beyond which args are required. The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.

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