Add Field to Resource

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden, yet it only reveals the existence of two behavioral modes ('Preview or apply'). It fails to disclose the two-phase handshake workflow (preview returns a previewHash that apply requires), the implications of conflictStrategy values including the potentially destructive 'overwrite', or any safety caveats about modifying manifest-managed resources. The single sentence is the barest outline of 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 sentence is economically constructed, front-loading the action verb and fitting meaningful scoping in a single readable clause. However, 'appropriately sized' is questionable — for a tool with this much complexity, one sentence is arguably under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. On pure prose quality it's well-built, but it earns no credit for elegance at the expense of substance.

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?

This tool has a nested field object with ten properties, a two-phase preview/apply workflow, a conflict resolution strategy with potentially destructive values, a required previewHash handoff, and zero annotations or output schema describing any of it. The description needed to do significant heavy lifting and performs none of it. An agent cannot learn the workflow or safely invoke apply mode from this text 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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description was obligated to compensate but names no parameters directly. 'Existing manifest-managed resource' loosely implies resourceName, but nothing explains the field structure, the preview/apply handoff via previewHash, or the conflictStrategy semantics. All five parameters, including the nested field object with its ten sub-properties, go entirely unexplained.

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 has a specific verb-object construction ('Preview or apply a new field') and a clear resource target ('an existing manifest-managed resource'). The 'manifest-managed' qualifier usefully distinguishes this from scaffolding new resources. However, differentiation from siblings like preview_scaffold or scaffold_resource is left implicit, not stated.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as scaffold_resource or preview_scaffold. The 'preview or apply' phrasing hints at a workflow — run preview first, then apply — but never states that the preview output is needed as subsequent input (previewHash) or when each mode is appropriate. An agent must infer the intended usage pattern from the schema.

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