paperclip_create_company

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

Description discloses board-only auth requirement and auto-generation of issuePrefix. Annotations already set destructiveHint: false, so no contradiction. However, it doesn't explicitly mention mutation or side effects beyond creation, though that's implied.

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?

Well-structured with distinct sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Each sentence adds useful information, no fluff. Length is appropriate for the complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return object (UUID, issuePrefix, status, timestamps). Error handling covers 400, 401, 403. For a creation tool, this is complete and eliminates ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value with examples (e.g., budgetMonthlyCents example), explanation of issuePrefix auto-generation, and notes name is required. This exceeds the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Create a new company' and specifies the auto-generated issuePrefix, distinguishing it from other company tools like paperclip_update_company and paperclip_archive_company. The verb 'create' and resource 'company' are explicit.

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?

Usage guidelines are explicit: 'Use when: onboarding a new organization or setting up a tenant on the board' and 'Don't use when: you need to update an existing company — use paperclip_update_company instead'. Also notes board-level authentication requirement.

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