post-crm-v4-objects-objtype_objtype

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a body parameter is required and gives an example, but it does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., returns created object ID), any required permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. For a create operation, this is a significant transparency 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 very concise, consisting of one imperative verb and a short example. It is front-loaded with the action and includes no unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that there are 3 parameters with nested structures, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite incomplete. It does not explain the return value, how to use the 'associations' parameter, or potential failure scenarios. The example only covers companies, leaving other object types under-specified.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a concrete example for companies, showing how to structure the 'properties' parameter and specifying required fields like 'name', 'domain', and 'industry'. This adds meaning beyond the generic schema descriptions, making the parameter semantics clearer, even though it doesn't cover all object types.

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 starts with 'Create,' which is a clear verb, and provides an example for companies with properties. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource being created (e.g., 'CRM object') and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like the batch create endpoint. The example gives some hint, but the purpose is vaguely stated.

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 such as batch create, update, or search endpoints. The description implies usage by requiring a body parameter, but it does not mention when this single-create tool is appropriate or when to prefer a different tool. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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