Create custom object record

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), and the description does not contradict that. It adds the useful validation hint that properties must match the schema's property keys, but does not disclose failure behavior or response contents.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first and the critical properties constraint is second, making it easy to scan.

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 description is adequate for a simple create call but lacks important context: what schemaKey refers to, how to discover valid schemas, and what the tool returns. With no output schema, some mention of return value would improve completeness.

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 about 67%, so the description needs to add some meaning. It clarifies that 'properties' is a key/value map aligned with the schema's property keys, which is helpful, but it leaves 'schemaKey' undefined in both schema and description.

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 a create action on 'a record for a custom object', which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling operations like ghl_update_object_record or ghl_get_object_record, relying on the verb and title instead.

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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor are prerequisites mentioned. An agent is not told to look up the schema first via ghl_list_object_schemas or ghl_get_object_schema, nor that updates should go to ghl_update_object_record.

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