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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: it consumes the workspace's field quota, and it may return a needs_confirmation envelope requiring user approval. It stops short of describing the created object or idempotency/error behavior.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The em-dash gloss on 'origin idea' and the confirmation warning each carry information; the sentences are tight and 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?

With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description's main remaining duty is to warn about the non-obvious needs_confirmation response, which it does. Quota consumption and the approval flow are covered; only the return shape and failure modes are left implicit.

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 100%, so all five parameters (including the originIdea seed, workspace slug rules, and visibility enum) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the originIdea concept but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Creates a field') and clarifies what a field is ('the seed of an exploration canvas'), which an agent needs since 'field' is ambiguous. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling read/update/delete field tools and from the adjacent prism_interviews/series creation tools.

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?

The description implies the tool's role (field creation) but never states when to reach for this versus siblings like prism_fields_update or prism_interviews_create, nor covers prerequisites such as required quota or prior approval. Usage is inferable from the verb but not spelled out.

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