b24_crm_create

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, but it only restates the create operation. It does not disclose that a write webhook may be required, that the operation is not read-only, or any side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning by naming the action and the accepted entity types.

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 tool with six parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits return behavior, prerequisites such as personal_webhook, and how several parameters work.

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 description partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage by enumerating allowed values for the entity parameter. However, it adds no meaning for webhook_url, entity_type_id, or params, which are undocumented in the schema; the schema descriptions for fields and personal_webhook carry the rest.

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 a specific verb ('Crea') and a concrete resource ('registro CRM'), then enumerates supported entity types: deal, contact, company, lead, cotización, o item de SPA. This clearly distinguishes creation from sibling tools like b24_crm_update, b24_crm_delete, and b24_crm_list.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a new CRM record of the listed types needs to be created. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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