locations_create_custom_field

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the create intent is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—such as side effects, defaulting of locationId, or what the response will contain. It contributes zero additional value beyond the 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 a single fragment and technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It provides no usable content and lacks any logical organization, so it does not earn credit for conciseness.

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?

Given 10 parameters, only 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool creates, how to use it, or any defaults or constraints. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool from this definition alone.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining key parameters like name, dataType, position, or placeholder. It does not mention any parameters at all, leaving required fields like dataType completely undocumented. This is a severe gap.

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' essentially restates the tool name with no additional specificity. It fails to convey that this tool is scoped to locations (as opposed to the sibling custom_fields_create_custom_field) or to clarify what makes it distinct. It is vague and provides no actionable information about what kind of custom field is created or for which models.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives like custom_fields_create_custom_field. There is no mention of prerequisites, location context, or conditions that would select this tool. The description is completely silent on usage context.

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