passgage_create_sub_companie

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

There are no annotations, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action 'create' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, potential errors, or any operational caveats, offering zero transparency beyond what the tool name implies.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is extremely concise. It earns points for brevity, though the lack of any additional structure or elaboration makes it feel under-specified rather than efficiently comprehensive.

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 create tool with a generic data object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides no context about required input structure, return values, or error handling. It is inadequate for an agent to understand what constitutes a valid request, offering only the most basic intent.

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?

The schema has a single 'data' object with additionalProperties true, and both the schema and description are tautological ('data for creating the sub_companie'). The description adds no field-level semantics, no required fields, nor examples, so it fails to compensate for the schema's vagueness despite having 100% coverage.

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 a new sub_companie' uses a clear verb and resource, accurately indicating a create operation. It is unambiguous when compared to sibling tools like list/get/update/delete, but it does not elaborate on what a sub_companie is or how this differs from other create tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update, delete). While the verb 'create' implies a new entity, there is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or contrasting with sibling operations.

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