Create Custom Field

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description confirms it by saying 'Create'. The description adds only the data type discriminator note, which is more of a parameter relationship than a behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal side effects, auth needs, or response behavior, but the annotations cover the mutation aspect.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key discriminator detail. No wasted words, and it conveys the essential information clearly.

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 complex tool with 9 params and nested objects, the schema provides thorough parameter documentation, and the description adds the entity type scope and discriminator hint. However, there is no mention of the return value or expected response, which would be helpful given no output schema exists. Still, the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for every parameter including the input_settings variants. The description's mention of the data_type discriminator is useful but redundant, since the schema already specifies the input_settings structure. Thus the description adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new custom field') and the resource ('Ticket or Customer entities'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gorgias_update_custom_field by using the verb 'create' and specifying the two target entity types.

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 provides clear context: it is for creating custom fields, not updating or deleting them. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like gorgias_update_custom_field, but the scope is self-evident, making the usage context clear without exclusions.

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