Create a company

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

The description adds the authorization class 'instance_admin' and the HTTP endpoint, which provides context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose error behaviors, return format, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing parameter guidance and behavioral details that would justify longer text.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention what the tool returns upon success. For a creation tool, this is a notable omission. The description also lacks any summary of required fields or constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the full context.

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 description adds no explanation for any of the parameters (name, description, attachmentMaxBytes, budgetMonthlyCents, defaultResponsibleUserId). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions. This is a critical failing.

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 creates a company, a specific verb+resource. It also provides the underlying HTTP method and path, distinguishing it from siblings like get, patch, and delete for companies.

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 the tool is for creating companies but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like pc_post_companies_by_company_id_* (for sub-resources) or pc_patch_companies for updates. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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