Bulk Create Custom Field Lov Entries

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing ordering behavior (position sorted descending), partial failure semantics (individual entries can fail independently), error status meanings (401, 403, 404), and the fact that it processes all records in one request. This is substantial behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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 dense but well-organized, covering purpose, usage, prerequisites, behavior, error handling, and endpoint. While longer than minimal, each sentence adds value and the structure makes it scannable. It is not overly verbose for the complexity involved.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('returns the resulting collection') and error behavior, including partial failures. It also provides the API location and endpoint. Missing details about the exact structure of each LOV entry, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: custom_field_definition_id must identify an existing parent record, and custom_field_lov_entries is the request body array. It reinforces required parameters but does not detail the internal structure of each LOV entry, which the schema also leaves unspecified.

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 tool's function: 'Bulk Creates a Custom Field Lov Entries' with the specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this bulk operation from single-record calls and provides the exact endpoint, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many custom field LOV entries at once.' It also instructs the agent to resolve custom_field_definition_id with the matching list tool first, clarifying prerequisites and when to use this tool.

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