crm_batch_create_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it's a batch creation tool, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial failures, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure details). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple statement, though it lacks detail needed for completeness.

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's complexity (batch mutation with a nested schema), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the input structure, behavioral traits, or output, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'inputs' parameter or its structure (e.g., that it's an array of company objects with properties and optional associations). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name, leaving the complex schema undocumented.

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 action ('Create multiple companies') and resource ('companies'), specifying it's a batch operation ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from non-batch siblings like 'crm_create_company', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch create tools like 'crm_batch_create_contacts' or 'crm_batch_create_leads' beyond the resource type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when batch creation is preferable to single creation, or how it compares to other batch tools (e.g., 'crm_batch_create_objects'). The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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