ghl_create_custom_field

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention whether duplicate names are rejected, whether fieldKey is auto-generated, or what the response includes. This is a significant gap for a create operation.

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 sentence and front-loaded, but it is too sparse to be useful. It omits necessary context, trading completeness for brevity.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent without information about how to construct valid requests or what to expect in return.

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 schema description covers 63% of parameters, but the tool description adds no parameter-level information. Undocumented parameters like position and placeholder remain unexplained, and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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 action (create) and resource (custom field) within a location. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_custom_field and delete_custom_field, though 'location' could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_custom_field or create_custom_value. It does not mention prerequisites or cases such as needing a folder (parentId) or whether options are required for certain dataTypes.

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