Create Company File

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

Annotations indicate a non-destructive write operation. The description confirms creation and the success response. It adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., side effects, authorization). No contradictions.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy (repeating 'creates a new Documents' twice) and a possible typo ('Documents') prevent a perfect score, but it remains efficient.

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 simple creation tool with two well-documented parameters and annotations, the description covers purpose, required parameters, API route, and success response. It lacks details on errors or return structure, but these are partly compensated by schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description merely restates required parameters without adding new semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a new File associated with specific Company.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this company-level tool from project-level file tools. The success response (HTTP 201) is also mentioned, leaving no ambiguity.

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 required parameters and the API endpoint, which aids usage. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_company_file_version or create_company_folder. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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