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

Annotations mark it non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the crucial staging detail that it saves an exact request for review and does NOT create the field. It also identifies the target API and warns that provider record text is untrusted data, adding security context beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and staging behavior, then adds documentation and a security note. Most sentences carry useful information, though 'optional flags follow normal business behavior' is vague and does not earn 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?

Purpose, staging behavior, and required-parameter meaning are covered, and the output schema means return values need not be described. For a 15-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, however, the optional parameters are not explained well enough for fully informed 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 15 parameters, but the description only explains the three required fields: fieldLabel, entityType, and dataType. The many optional controls (min/max, lengths, visibility, required, filterable, options) are dismissed with 'optional flags follow normal business behavior,' leaving their semantics undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (Prepare) and resource (a NEW employee or location custom field), and explicitly rules out edit and import. That distinguishes it from sibling tools such as system_prepare_import and gives an agent enough scope to select it without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly states the intended case is a new custom field and says no spreadsheet or existing custom-field ID is required, which implicitly excludes import and edit workflows. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tool or state the next step after review, so routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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