Create Company Office

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds crucial behavioral details: the need for multipart/form-data when uploading a logo, the ISO-3166 validation constraints, the non-idempotent nature ('calling it again creates another record'), the HTTP 201 response with the new id, and specific error scenarios (401, 403, 404). These are not implied by the annotations alone.

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 well-structured with markdown subheadings and front-loads the core purpose. It contains some redundancy ('Creates an Office associated to a Company' and later 'Creates the company office'), and the length is substantial, but each section provides useful, non-repetitive operational details.

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 covers the essential context for a create operation: return value (HTTP 201 with new id), non-idempotency, error payloads, authentication failure scenarios, and special upload requirements. There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by describing the response shape. A full office object property listing is absent, but the provided details are adequate for initial use.

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?

Although the schema describes both parameters, the parameter descriptions are generic ('JSON request body field — office object'). The description adds meaning by revealing that the office object contains country_code, state_code, and logo fields, and by explaining their constraints (ISO-3166, multipart/form-data). This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions, though it does not fully enumerate all office properties.

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 a specific action: 'Creates an Office associated to a Company.' It includes the return behavior ('returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)') and the endpoint (POST /rest/v1.0/offices). This distinguishes it from sibling update/show/delete tools and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 rich context on how to use the tool: multipart/form-data requirements for logo upload, ISO-3166 alpha-2 compliance for country/state codes, required parameters, and common failure statuses (401/403/404). It does not explicitly contrast with update/show/delete siblings or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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