create_business_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return values (busObRecId and public ID) and that field keys may be either field names or display names, but says nothing about failure behavior, validation errors for unknown fields, permission requirements, or what happens when required fields are omitted.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the action. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: purpose, how to pass fields, prerequisite lookup, and return contract.

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 two-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what it creates, how to shape the fields map, how to discover required fields via a sibling, and what identifiers come back. Only error/validation semantics are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that the fields map accepts either field names or display names, which the schema does not state, and names the concrete return identifiers. The businessObject parameter itself gets no extra explanation beyond the schema's own description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new business object record') that immediately distinguishes it from siblings like update_business_object, delete_business_object, and search_business_objects. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow: call get_business_object_template with requiredOnly=true to learn which fields are mandatory before creating. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g. use update_business_object for existing records), but the create-vs-update split is implied by the verb and sibling names.

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