crm_create_association

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether associations are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with 5 required parameters, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While it's under-specified, what's there is structurally efficient.

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 mutation tool with 5 required parameters (including complex enums and nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'association' means, doesn't document parameters, doesn't describe behavioral constraints, and provides no usage context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain what 'fromObjectType'/'toObjectType' mean, what valid object IDs look like, or how associationTypes work. For 5 required parameters with complex enums and nested objects, this is a significant gap.

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 an association between two objects' clearly states the action (create) and resource (association), but it's vague about what an 'association' means in this CRM context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like crm_batch_create_associations or crm_get_associations beyond the basic verb difference.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose batch operations (crm_batch_create_associations), or how this differs from related tools like crm_list_association_types. Usage context is entirely implied from the tool name.

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