Fields: add

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is minimally covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state required permissions, whether field names must be unique, side effects on existing data, or which parameter combinations are valid for relationship fields.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It earns its brevity, though the size is arguably too small for a 17-parameter mutation tool rather than an issue of wasted words.

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 tool with 17 parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description leaves critical structure unexplained – notably that the chosen type determines which other parameters (target, options, display, on_delete) become relevant. An agent calling this correctly needs far more context than one sentence provides.

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 description coverage is 100% across all 17 parameters, so the schema already documents types, defaults, and enum-like value lists. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Add a field to an entity" gives a verb (add) and a resource (field), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title "Fields: add" with no clarifying detail. It does not identify what kind of field, what an entity is in this domain, or how it differs from siblings like fields_update, fields_delete, or fields_get beyond the bare verb.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as fields_update for modifying an existing field or entities_create for creating the entity first. The agent must infer everything from the verb alone.

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