crm_create_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just four words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a tool name that already includes 'crm_create_object', this brevity is appropriate.

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 complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what data should be provided in 'properties', how associations work, or what the different objectType values mean. For a generic creation tool that can handle multiple object types with complex parameter structures, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'CRM object' but doesn't explain the three parameters (objectType, properties, associations) or their semantics. It doesn't clarify what 'properties' should contain, what 'associations' mean, or how to use the objectType enum. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names visible in the schema.

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 states 'Create a new CRM object' which clearly indicates the verb (create) and resource (CRM object). However, it doesn't specify what types of objects can be created or differentiate from sibling tools like crm_create_company, crm_create_contact, or crm_batch_create_objects. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for creating specific object types (companies, contacts, leads) and batch operations, there's no indication whether this is a generic creation tool or how it relates to those specialized tools. No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.

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