Create Generic Tool

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return object and HTTP 201 status, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or side effects. Annotations carry the main burden, so description adds marginal value.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a link, required parameters, and endpoint info. Could be slightly trimmed (e.g., the endpoint line), but overall concise and well-structured.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides the API endpoint and a documentation link. However, with no output schema, it only mentions 'returns the created object' without detailing the response structure, leaving a gap.

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%, so each parameter is already well-described. The description only restates that company_id and title are required, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 'Create a new Generic Tool in the specified Company.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (Generic Tool), distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it creates a 'Custom - Configurable Tool' at the company level, and specifies the HTTP 201 response.

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 a link for more info on Generic Tool and Correspondence Tool endpoints, hinting at alternatives, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or precise context.

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