create_custom_field_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares this is a write operation, that it is admin-only, and that lists up to 50 options are created synchronously and returned while larger lists go through an asynchronous Greenhouse bulk request. It omits reversibility (how options are removed) and error/permission failure behavior, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the operation and its write/admin constraint, then the ID lookup, then the sync/async threshold. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still covers the key behavioral surprise (sync vs async based on the 50-option threshold) plus the auth requirement and ID acquisition path. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this 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, but the description adds procedural value the schema does not: how to obtain custom_field_id via list_custom_fields and matching by name. It adds nothing for the options array beyond what the schema already documents.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Add dropdown options to a custom field'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it is distinguished from (update_custom_field_options, delete_custom_field_options, create_custom_field), so it stops just short of the top band.

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?

It supplies real routing guidance for the hard part of calling it: 'To find custom_field_id: list_custom_fields → match by name.' It does not state when to use this instead of update_custom_field_options or delete_custom_field_options, nor any exclusions, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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