monica_company

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

The description includes a warning that delete is irreversible, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose other behaviors such as authorization needs, idempotency, or side effects beyond the delete warning.

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 very short (two sentences) and to the point, with no unnecessary words. The warning is effectively placed. However, it could be slightly more structured, e.g., listing actions in a bulleted format.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain pagination for list, required fields for create/update, or the return structure, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 tool manages 'companys' (company records) and lists the available CRUD actions, making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also manage other entities, and the typo 'companys' slightly reduces clarity.

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 does not explain when to choose 'list' over 'get', or under what circumstances to use this tool over similar monica_* tools for other entities.

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