objects_create_custom_object_schema

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation), idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the auth requirement, which is more of a usage guideline than a behavioral trait. It does not disclose any additional side effects, return values, or consequences of creation. With annotations covering basic traits, this is adequate but not enriching.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and includes a quick auth note. Every word 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?

The description is very minimal. It does not explain what creating a custom object schema entails (e.g., defining labels and primary display property) or what the agent should expect after success. While the schema provides full parameter documentation, the description lacks context about the purpose and outcome of the operation. For a create tool with nested objects, more context would be helpful, but it's not severely inadequate.

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 every parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not go beyond that.

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 states 'Create Custom Object' which is a clear action and resource, but it does not explicitly mention 'schema' or 'definition'. This could be ambiguous because sibling tool 'objects_create_object_record' also creates a custom object (a record). The tool name includes 'custom_object_schema' but the description alone doesn't clarify this distinction. It's close to 5 but falls short on specificity.

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 explicitly provides a usage constraint: 'requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT'. This tells the agent when it can use this tool (with agency-level auth) and when it cannot (with only location PIT). It does not mention alternatives or when to prefer other tools, but the auth prerequisite is a clear and useful usage guideline.

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