Create a company profile with a name and optional description, and mark it as your default employer company.
创建公司信息（需要 employer 角色）。输入公司名称 company_name 和简介 description，可指定是否设为默认企业 is_default。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| is_default | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| company_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only covers the role requirement. It says nothing about whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate company names, whether setting is_default silently unsets an existing default, or what failure modes to expect.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the action and the role prerequisite before listing inputs. No filler, though the parameter list reads partly as a restatement of schema property names.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the role requirement is covered. Still missing for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage: duplicate-name behavior, the interaction between is_default here and the set_default_company sibling, and error conditions.
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%, so the description has to compensate, and it does name all three parameters and clarify that is_default means 'set as the default enterprise'. It still does not explain side effects of is_default (e.g. whether it unsets a prior default) or expected format/length for 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource (创建公司信息) and lists the fields it accepts, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish the tool from siblings like set_default_company, even though the is_default parameter overlaps with that sibling's purpose.
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?
It provides one genuine precondition — the caller needs the employer role — which is real usage guidance. But there is no statement of when to choose this tool over set_default_company or list_companies, and no note about what happens if a company with the same name already exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.