Create Company

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns the created record including the assigned id, and it explicitly describes the 422 validation error format (naming the offending field). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then provides key behavioral details (return value, error handling) in a second paragraph, and ends with a brief operation class label. Every sentence adds useful information; the only minor redundancy is the 'Operation class: Create' line, but it does not detract.

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 15-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what a company is, what the tool returns, and how errors are reported. It does not explicitly mention that only 'name' is required, but that is evident from the schema. It could further suggest typical use cases (e.g., onboarding a new client), which would improve completeness, but it is otherwise adequate.

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 only 40% (6 of 15 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description itself provides no parameter-level guidance. The remaining 9 parameters (zip, city, state, etc.) rely on names or implicit understanding. Since coverage is low and the description does not compensate, the agent may struggle with undocumented 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 clearly states the action: 'Create a new company in Hudu.' It also explains what a company is (top-level container) and that every asset, article, password, and website belongs to exactly one, which differentiates it from other company-related operations like get, update, or archive. The verb-object-resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: creating a new top-level company. It implies this is the first step for organizing entities. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use hudu_update_company to modify an existing one'). Thus, it has clear context but no explicit when-not or alternatives.

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