bx24_crm_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'CRUD' generically, which implies mutation/deletion, but provides no details on destructive consequences, confirmation requirements, permissions, or side effects. The schema's action enum adds some destructive flags, but the description itself is insufficient.

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 compact, using three short sentences. The first sentence establishes scope, the second maps to REST method families, and the third adds multilingual aliases. There is minor redundancy between 'CRUD, contact bindings, user fields' and the method list, but no fluff.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 13 parameters, 19 enum values, nested objects, and no output schema. The description omits the details_get/details_set/details_reset actions entirely, does not explain return values or pagination, and leaves the agent to discover the full action set from the schema. The schema is rich, but the description alone is incomplete for the tool's breadth.

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 schema documents all 13 parameters, including the action enum details and field examples. The description adds nothing about parameter usage beyond categorizing the tool; the RU/EN aliases are search aids, not parameter semantics. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 names the target resource (Bitrix24 CRM companies) and enumerates its operation areas: CRUD, contact bindings, and user fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bx24_crm_deals or bx24_crm_contacts, though it lacks a single specific verb because it aggregates many operations.

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 scope is unambiguous: this is the tool for crm.company.* operations, including contact bindings and user fields. It gives clear context that company-specific CRUD and associated sub-resources belong here, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for related entity actions.

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