create_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a creation action but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing fields, requires specific permissions, or is irreversible). The example shows a mutation but lacks details on error conditions or constraints.

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: one sentence followed by an example. Every part is informative, with no redundant or vague statements. The example is detailed but necessary for clarity.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic usage but lacks details on return values (e.g., the created field object) and potential errors. For a tool with 5 parameters and nested objects, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds value with a concrete example that demonstrates how to use the 'meta' parameter with a nested structure, improving understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'Add a new field to a collection' and lists the key attributes (type, interface, constraints). The example further clarifies the purpose, making it distinct from sibling tools like create_collection or update_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 new fields but does not explicitly state when to use it versus updating an existing field (update_field) or when not to use it (e.g., if the field already exists). No prerequisites or preconditions are mentioned, though the example provides some context.

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