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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses that a field's kind cannot be changed once it exists, that omitting options removes them, and that an icon is refused for country fields. These are non-obvious behaviors that the agent needs to know to avoid errors.

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: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by keying behavior, an example request, the kind immutability constraint, and access restriction. No filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical behavioral nuances: creation vs. editing, name keying, kind immutability, options replacement, icon restriction, and access control. The schema handles parameter specifics, and the description fills the behavioral gaps completely.

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, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema: it explains the name-keyed idempotency, the immutability of kind, the exact behavior for options (removal) and icon (refusal for country), which clarifies edge cases the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Add a column to a project, or edit the one that already has this name.' It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like delete_project_field and list_project_fields by describing the create-or-edit behavior, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 states the access constraint 'Project lead or admin only' and explains the name-keyed behavior, which is a critical usage distinction. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context (e.g., delete_project_field) is implied and the description is clear about when to use this tool for field creation/editing.

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