post-crm-v3-objects-objtype_objtype

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create' and the body requirement, without mentioning authentication, property validation, idempotency, response format, or error behavior. The example hints at the expected structure but does not disclose side effects or prerequisites.

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, front-loaded with 'Create,' and includes a compact illustrative example. Every clause contributes value, and there is no padding or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 nested associations parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand invocation. It does not explain valid objectType values, association structure, return values, or failure modes, and it lacks usage context relative to the many sibling create/batch tools.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters (coverage 100%), but the descriptions are generic. The tool description adds a concrete company example with property names and values, which meaningfully supplements the schema's generic 'Key-value pairs' text. It does not add detail for the associations parameter, but the example provides practical value beyond 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 opens with 'Create' and provides a concrete example for companies with properties, making it clear that this endpoint creates a single CRM object of a specified type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling batch-create tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like post-crm-v3-objects-objtype-batch-create_create or v4 equivalents. The only instruction is 'REQUIRES body parameter with object properties,' which is a parameter constraint, not a decision guideline.

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