create_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates a new record and returns it, which covers basic behavior, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. It adequately describes the core operation but misses advanced behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key details on required/optional parameters and return value in just two sentences. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what the tool does, key parameters, and the return value. However, it could improve by addressing permissions or error scenarios, given the mutation nature and lack of structured safety hints.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by reiterating that 'Only the company name is required' and listing optional fields, but does not provide additional context beyond what the schema specifies, such as format constraints or usage examples.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new company'), the target resource ('in Attio CRM'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_company' or 'search_companies' by focusing on creation rather than modification or retrieval.

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 implies usage by stating 'Only the company name is required' and listing optional fields, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_company' or 'search_companies', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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