add-field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add', but does not mention permission requirements, whether the operation is persistent or reversible, potential errors (e.g., if field already exists), or side effects on existing data. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with a clear verb and object, front-loaded with 'Add a new field' and no filler. It is concise and to the point, earning its place without redundancy.

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?

As a schema-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as what happens if the field already exists, whether a master key is required, and what the response indicates. The rich sibling list and 4-parameter complexity suggest more context is needed for safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already explains what each parameter means. The description adds only the resource context ('existing Parse class') and no additional parameter-level detail. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Add') and resource ('new field') with an explicit scope ('to an existing Parse class'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-class and delete-field. It immediately conveys what the tool does.

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 phrase 'to an existing Parse class' provides clear context that this is for adding fields to already-created classes, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the distinction is clear enough.

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