Create a record

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

The annotations already declare non-idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable side-effect context not in annotations: duplicate calls create duplicate records, and creating a company can trigger automatic enrichment that consumes credits. It does not cover permission or error details, but the description carries the key behavioral risks well.

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?

Three sentences are front-loaded with the action and the duplicate-check warning, and each sentence carries useful information. The final sentence about return value is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but it does not undermine clarity.

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 create tool with a nested fields object and an output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: what it creates, duplicate risk, and the enrichment side effect. The schema handles the fine-grained field requirements, and the annotation profile is already covered, leaving little missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema already explains object_type, fields, relationships, and schema_id in depth. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: creating one record, with the concrete object types (company, person, deal, custom object row). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools such as heliyos_records_lookup and heliyos_records_update without opening their schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by instructing the agent to check heliyos_records_lookup first to avoid duplicates, and it warns that calling twice creates two records. That is direct routing to an alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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