create_company

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the create action and gives a parameter hint; it does not mention required permissions, idempotency, side effects, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and adding one actionable hint. Every word earns its place.

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?

The essential parameters are fully documented in the schema and the custom-field hint adds useful context for the optional payload. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not state what a successful creation returns or what prerequisites apply, leaving a noticeable completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their nested structure. The description adds practical meaning by telling the agent to use custom_fields_values for address, website, etc., which clarifies the purpose of the most complex parameter beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new company in amoCRM.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_lead, create_contact, and create_task. The follow-up hint about custom_fields_values reinforces the resource type without ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to sibling creation tools. The intended usage is implied by the verb and resource name, and the custom_fields_values hint addresses how to populate optional data, but no alternative-selection conditions or exclusions are stated.

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