Create companies

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

The description only repeats the action of creating. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, validation behavior, or response format. The annotation 'openWorldHint' provides some context but is not leveraged or explained in the description.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it fails to convey necessary context, which slightly detracts from its conciseness value.

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 freeform array of objects with no schema details and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about required fields, validation, return values, or error scenarios, making it nearly unusable for an agent without external documentation.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the 'companies' parameter. The schema merely says 'Company object per Kommo API' without field details, and the tool description gives no help on constructing valid objects.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('companies'), and specifies batch capability ('one or more'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by resource and action, though it lacks any scope clarifications like the get_calls example.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The only implied usage is from the verb 'Create', which is minimal.

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