create_company

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., what happens on duplicate company_name), or error scenarios. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 brief, consisting of two sentences and a tooltip. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. No redundant information is present.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide adequate context for 10 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. It omits explanations for most fields and does not cover prerequisites or side effects.

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 0%, and the description only explains 'company_name', 'industry_id', and 'custom_fields' superficially. It does not describe the meaning or usage of the other 7 parameters (e.g., 'about_company', 'website', 'city', etc.).

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 clearly states 'Create a company via POST /v1/companies' and identifies 'company_name' as the only required field. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_company' and 'get_company'.

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 explicit guidance to use 'list_industries' to resolve 'industry_id' and 'list_company_custom_fields' for 'custom_fields'. This helps the agent use optional parameters correctly, though it does not mention when to avoid this tool.

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