company_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it reveals the server-level scope, the specific endpoint called, and the elevated auth requirement beyond single-company rights. It does not mention side effects or failure conditions, but for a create tool with an output schema, this is strong transparency.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action before adding the differentiator and permission requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema contents.

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 server-level creation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description provides the essential operational context: resource, scope, endpoint, and required access level. The output schema covers the return shape, so nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool and invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already explain name, IC, country, org_type, use_demo, and extra_fields. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline but earns no extra credit.

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 first sentence states the exact action and resource: creating a brand-new AbraFlexi company at the server root, with a parenthetical clarifying what an accounting unit is. The second sentence explicitly distinguishes it from every other *_create tool, so an agent can differentiate it from the many create-family siblings without opening their schemas.

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 says this tool does NOT operate on the company configured via ABRAFLEXI_COMPANY, which is the key decision boundary. It names the server-level endpoint and the required permission level, giving both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance in two sentences.

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