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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: admin-only authorization, the anti-sprawl check that returns matches instead of creating, the confirm_new override, and the returned object definition. These are exactly the traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then anti-sprawl, then a scoped 'When to use' section and a worked example. It is longer than minimal for a 7-param tool, and the inline example is somewhat redundant, but every section is organized and 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?

Complexity is moderate, an output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the description still notes that it returns the created definition. Permissions, duplicate-handling, and the key naming side-effect ('slug becomes the stable key') are all covered, leaving no material 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 baseline is 3 and the schema does the heavy lifting for label, plural, shared, icon, blurb, and confirm_new. The description adds real value for display_field by explaining its downstream consumers (entity matcher and cards), which the schema does not.

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+resource ('Create a new custom object TYPE') with concrete examples and names the sibling operations (create_record/update_record/search_records) that act on the result. It explicitly distinguishes object types from relationship concepts, so an agent can tell it apart from define_field, define_enum_value, and the record tools without opening a 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?

The 'When to use' block gives an explicit trigger (admin wants to track a genuinely new noun not covered by built-ins) and an explicit anti-case (it is not a relationship type; investor/partner are stickers). It also names the anti-sprawl behavior and the confirm_new override, leaving nothing to inference.

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