crm_create_association

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure itself is efficient and to the point.

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?

For a 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'association' entails in this system, doesn't document any of the parameters, doesn't describe the response format, and provides no behavioral context. The conciseness comes at the expense of necessary information for proper tool invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'fromObjectId', 'toObjectId', 'associationTypes', or the object types mean. It doesn't explain the relationship between these parameters or provide examples, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Create an association between two objects' clearly states the action (create) and resource (association), but it's vague about what an 'association' means in this CRM context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'crm_batch_create_associations' or 'crm_create_object', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus batch operations.

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 like 'crm_batch_create_associations' for multiple associations or 'crm_create_object' for creating the objects themselves. The description offers no context about prerequisites, such as whether the objects must exist first, or any constraints on association types.

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