create_custom_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose important behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, idempotency, or whether field names must be unique. It only lists allowed values for parameters, failing to reveal potential side effects or constraints of the creation 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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides essential parameter details. No unnecessary information is included, and the most critical details are front-loaded.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics adequately though not exhaustively. It does not explain the return value (output schema exists, so that's acceptable) or discuss uniqueness constraints or default behavior beyond what's in the schema. Overall, it is minimally adequate but has gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the allowed values for parent_type (Case|Client|Lead), field_type (text|date|list|checkbox|number), and list_options (comma-separated format). However, the 'name' parameter is left undocumented, relying solely on the schema title.

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 explicitly states 'Create a custom field' and enumerates the valid values for parent_type and field_type, making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_custom_field_option by focusing on field creation rather than option management.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_custom_field_option for adding options to existing fields). It lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter details alone.

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