spoolman_upsert_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'Add or update' without disclosing side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens if the field already exists. This is a sparse treatment for a mutating operation, leaving significant uncertainty about its runtime behavior.

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 13-word sentence that front-loads the action ('Add or update') and resource, with zero filler. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks guidance on success/failure behavior, reversibility, prerequisites, and how the upsert is expected to behave, making it incomplete for an AI agent to confidently invoke.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including semantics for key, entity_type, and field_type. The description adds the 'upsert' context but no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding significant value.

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 a specific action ('Add or update') and resource ('custom extra field for a given entity type'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_fields (listing) and delete_field (deletion). The verb+resource combination makes the tool's function unmistakable.

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 implies use for creating or modifying custom field definitions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over list_fields or delete_field. There are no exclusions or alternative references, leaving usage context mostly inferred from the tool name and sibling set.

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