airtable-user-mcp

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context by explaining it creates a new field (a write operation consistent with annotations) and mentions it's a shorthand for another tool, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Create a new formula field in a table' states the action, and 'Shorthand for create_field with type "formula"' provides crucial sibling differentiation without redundancy.

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 creation tool with good annotations (non-destructive, non-idempotent) and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, distinguishes from siblings, and implies creation behavior. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or field ID), which is a minor gap for a creation operation.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain formula syntax or name constraints). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly states the specific action ('create a new formula field'), the resource ('in a table'), and distinguishes it from a sibling tool by mentioning it's a 'shorthand for create_field with type "formula"'. This explicitly differentiates it from the generic create_field tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating it's a 'shorthand for create_field with type "formula"', which directly names the alternative (create_field) and specifies the condition (when creating a formula field specifically). This helps the agent choose between these two tools.

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