create_new_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious side effect: a single call creates three entities (profile, ledger, founder employee). That is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about failure modes (e.g., duplicate company name), permission requirements, or reversibility, which are significant gaps for an unannotated 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and the three created artifacts are stated up front. Nothing is padded and nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, which the description correctly omits. But for an unannotated, three-parameter mutation that provisions multiple entities, the definition omits prerequisite conditions and parameter meaning, leaving real gaps for the agent.

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?

All three parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It never clarifies what initial_budget represents (currency, units, minimum 0 semantics) or what sector expects beyond a free string. Parameter meaning is left entirely to inference.

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 gives a specific verb (Create) and enumerates exactly what gets created: a company profile, a financial ledger, and a founder employee record. This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like add_financial_record and add_employee, which add single entities rather than bootstrapping a whole company. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_employee or add_financial_record, which overlap with the founder record and ledger this tool creates. An agent can infer 'use this to start a company,' but the description never states when this is preferable to the granular sibling tools.

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