post-crm-v3-properties-objtype-batch-create_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states a 'REQUIRES body parameter' and gives an example, but the example is misleading because it shows an object-record payload (with 'properties' key and name/value pairs) rather than property-definition fields like name, label, and fieldType. No response format, idempotency, or prerequisite behaviors are disclosed.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear purpose, but the example occupies significant space and is inaccurate, so it does not earn its place. It is not overly verbose, yet the misleading content undermines the efficiency.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (batch property definition creation), but the description gives no context about response behavior, validation, or the need for existing property groups. It also fails to clarify that this is for property definitions, not object records, which is particularly important given sibling tools for batch-cr eating objects.

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%, but the description adds negative value by referencing a 'body parameter' that is not in the schema and by providing an example that contradicts the schema's expected shape for 'inputs.' It does not explain the required fields for each property (name, label, type, fieldType, groupName) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 batch of properties,' which clearly identifies the verb (create), resource (properties), and scope (batch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like single-property creation through the word 'batch,' though it does not explicitly mention that these are property definitions rather than object records.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as single property creation or batch read/archive. The description does not mention that this endpoint creates property definitions, nor does it exclude using it for object records, which is a significant ambiguity.

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