Create Company

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

With annotations already marking this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: duplicate checking via allow_duplicate, the requirement for owner_id and created_by, and the compact summary output with company slug. These details go beyond the raw annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, required inputs, and how to resolve dependencies. The duplicate-check behavior and return format are also covered. No redundant or filler content.

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 high parameter count (19) and full schema coverage, the description focuses on the non-obvious aspects: duplicate policy, ID resolution, and output. An output schema exists, so return details need no expansion. It could mention validation failures, but this is a minor omission.

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 all 19 parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds semantic value by clarifying the purpose of allow_duplicate ('Checks duplicates by company_name unless allow_duplicate=true') and advising to resolve IDs via list_users and list_custom_fields, which helps interpret owner_id, created_by, and custom_fields.

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 opens with 'Creates one Recruit CRM company', using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_companies, update_company, and list_companies. The scope ('one') and the duplicate-check behavior further clarify its unique role.

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 states required parameters and provides actionable guidance: 'Resolve user IDs with list_users and custom field IDs with list_custom_fields for entity_type=companies.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool by outlining prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_company, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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