POST /extraField (Extra Field)

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with the description. The description adds detail on field constraints but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or limits beyond that.

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 concise with a clear front-loaded purpose and structured parameter listing. No unnecessary words.

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 thoroughly covers input parameters but lacks any information about return values or output, which is important since there is no output schema. This leaves the agent unsure of the response format.

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 coverage is 100% as the description lists and explains all body parameters (name, type, showCustomerService) with required status, accepted values, and constraints, adding meaning beyond the generic schema.

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 tool creates an extra field ('Criação de um Campo Extra'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_extra_fields, update_extra_field, and delete_extra_field.

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 usage for creating a new extra field but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, the context of a CRUD create tool makes it reasonably clear.

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