Create Field

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

Annotations are all false, providing no behavioral signals. The description discloses that the tool creates a field and returns the created object with ID. It adds context about relationships (farm, area) but does not cover side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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: a short paragraph followed by a bullet-like Args list and a return statement. Every sentence adds value, front-loading the purpose. There is no redundant or verbose language. It effectively communicates the necessary information without waste.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a return statement indicating the created object includes an ID. It explains prerequisites for area creation and relationships. However, it does not cover validation or error scenarios (e.g., missing farm). Given the parameter richness and clear schema, it is largely complete but could expand on constraints.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that area_ID should be created with sia_create_area first, and by describing the relationships between field, farm, and area. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, earning a 4.

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 starts with 'Create a new field in the SIA FarmAndFieldService', which clearly states the verb and resource. It adds context that a field belongs to a farm and is associated with an area, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sia_create_area or sia_create_crop_zone. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 by listing parameters and highlighting that area_ID must be created with sia_create_area first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate. The guidance is limited to a prerequisite hint.

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