collection_fields_create_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It confirms a create mutation but says nothing about required prerequisites (e.g., both collections existing), validation rules, idempotency, permissions, or what response the caller should expect.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's role.

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?

The schema provides required field details and the description clarifies the field purpose, making invocation feasible. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral caveats, the description is only minimally complete for a mutation tool with a nested request object.

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 low (50%) and the description adds only a high-level conceptual mapping (reference field = another collection) rather than clarifying the nested `request` object or the relationship between `type` and `metadata.collectionId`. Most parameter semantics must be inferred from the schema, not the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('reference field in a CMS collection'), and explicitly states the linking purpose ('links to items in another collection'), which distinguishes it from sibling field-creation tools like create_static or create_option.

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 clearly implies this tool is for creating relational/link fields between collections, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or name alternative tools for non-reference fields.

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