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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical context beyond that: it changes the schema, not just data, affects every record and caller, and removal is not offered. It also discloses that writes land in a shared AIsa workspace with no isolation. This significantly enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it starts with the core action, then the most important caveat (schema vs data), then a concrete preventive check, then the shared-workspace warning. The warning symbol and bold text highlight the risk. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no required parameters and a nested object, the description covers the essential operational caveats: schema-level impact, non-removability, duplication check, and shared workspace implications. Combined with the existing annotations and an output schema, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 the parameters (meta, type, label, modality) are already documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Per the calibration baseline, 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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 the specific verb and resource ('Create a custom field') and immediately distinguishes it from get_apollo_typed_custom_fields, which is a sibling. The description also clarifies the scope (schema vs data) and the global effect on every record, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from other post_* 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to check get_apollo_typed_custom_fields first to avoid duplicate fields, providing a clear when-not-to-use condition. It also warns about the shared workspace and lack of per-caller isolation, guiding the agent on whether this is appropriate given the context. No alternatives are left implicit.

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