create_custom_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral content: the accepted data_type set and the currency-prefix validation rule for monetary values. However, it omits other mutation traits — permission requirements, duplicate-name behavior, irreversibility, and what extra_data does — leaving significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the type list, then the noteworthy monetary caveat. Every clause earns its place; only minor redundancy in listing all nine types already present in the enum.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented `extra_data` parameter, the description is under-specified. It covers the happy path of creating a typed field but not side effects, failure modes, or the extra payload.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the data_type values (matching the enum) and explains monetary value formatting, but says nothing about `name` constraints or the open-ended `extra_data` object, which is the most opaque parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a new custom field") and adds the key discriminator, the data_type that shapes the field. It is clearly distinguishable from list/update/delete_custom_field siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The agent must infer that this is the creation counterpart to update_custom_field purely from the name.

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