put-crm-v4-objects-var-var-associations-default-var-var_var

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or response behavior, leaving the agent without essential safety or operational context.

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 two words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits necessary information and does not front-load any useful content.

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?

For a PUT mutation with 5 required parameters, a nested body object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose, request body, or the effect of the operation, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, though the descriptions are minimal ('Path parameter X'). The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 'Create Default' uses a verb and a vague noun but does not clarify what 'Default' refers to (e.g., a default association). It does not mention associations or objects, making the tool's purpose ambiguous and indistinguishable from sibling tools like batch-associate-default.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. With many sibling tools, the absence of usage guidance is a critical gap.

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