Create Company Office

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open world. The description adds value by detailing the multipart/form-data requirement for logo upload, ISO-3166 code conformance, and HTTP 201 response with the created object. No contradictions with annotations.

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 fairly long and structured with headings, but contains some redundancy and a minor inconsistency ('Company Settings' vs 'Office'). It front-loads the purpose but could be more concise by removing the repeated 'Company Settings' reference.

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 lack of output schema and the complexity of multipart upload and ISO codes, the description covers the essential aspects: creation process, special upload instructions, parameter validation, endpoint, and successful response. It does not detail the complete office object structure, but the schema's additionalProperties indicates flexibility.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that company_id is the company ID and highlighting specific fields within the office object (logo, country_code, state_code) and their validation rules, which the schema does not specify.

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 'Creates an Office associated to a Company', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, list, show, and update, which are present in the sibling list.

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 clear context with details about logo upload and ISO code requirements, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions the endpoint and API reference but lacks exclusions.

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