Create Generic Tool

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds valuable context: non-idempotency explicitly, HTTP 201 return, default company_id behavior, and typical error codes. However, it does not detail rate limits, permission nuances beyond 'tool permission', or payload nesting details, but the description adds meaningful context beyond 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 moderately sized but packed with information. It front-loads the core action and then provides essential usage details, error handling, and endpoint. Some sentences are long and dense, but every sentence carries meaningful info. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient overall.

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 creation tool with annotations and a complete schema but no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects: return value (returns it with new id), non-idempotency, common error codes, and required parameters. It doesn't describe the full return object structure, but since no output schema exists, a bit more detail on the response shape could be helpful. However, given the richness of other context, it is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying the required parameters, the company_id default behavior, and that fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the payload. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, adding contextual value for how to pass them.

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 Generic Tool'), the target resource ('in the specified Company'), and includes the endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by mentioning the Correspondence Tool distinction and provides context that it creates a new record, differentiating from list/update/delete generic tool siblings.

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 explicitly states required parameters (company_id, title), mentions the default behavior for company_id, and clarifies non-idempotency (calling it again creates another record). It also provides failure scenarios (401, 403, 404) which guide when the tool is appropriate and what errors to expect, and links to further documentation.

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