custom_fields_create_custom_field

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide. The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description simply restates the creation action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or consequences. It provides no value beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single terse phrase that doesn't constitute a meaningful sentence. While it's concise, it is under-specified and fails to provide any useful content. Every word should earn its place, but here the words 'Create' and 'Custom Field' merely echo the tool name.

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 tool with 13 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no overall context about what a custom field is, how objectKey and fieldKey relate, when to use this over other creation tools, or what the response will look like. The schema alone cannot compensate for the complete lack of domain guidance.

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 13 parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 'Create Custom Field' states a clear verb and resource, but it's extremely generic and doesn't specify what a custom field is or how it differs from related tools like custom_fields_create_custom_field_folder. It's more than a pure tautology because 'custom field' is a specific entity, but it lacks any differentiating detail.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as custom_fields_update_custom_field or custom_fields_create_custom_field_folder. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent has no information to select this tool appropriately.

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