create_record

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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: the search-and-return behavior of unique_on, the lack of Odoo idempotency keys, and multi-company visibility nuances. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 efficiently structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by essential behavioral and usage details. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, avoiding unnecessary verbosity.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input semantics and behavioral traits. It covers idempotency, dedup, and multi-company scenarios, which are critical for correct tool invocation. No gaps remain for the intended usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for unique_on (list of field names, dedup logic) and values (company_id guidance). Only the model parameter lacks explicit description, but its purpose is clear from context.

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 the resource 'record', and immediately highlights the key deduplication feature with unique_on. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_record (update) and read_record (read).

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?

Guidance is provided on when to use unique_on (to avoid duplicates) and when retries cause duplicates due to lack of idempotency key. Multi-company handling is explained. However, explicit comparison to write_record or when not to use the tool is missing.

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