Create Tracker field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but they cannot express that the created field is irreversible and cannot be deleted. The description supplies exactly that missing context ('NOT deletable — creation leaves permanent residue'), which is high-value for a create tool. It stops short of stating required permissions or the effect of an id collision, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight paragraphs with the destructive/irreversible caveat front-loaded before the field requirements — good information ordering. Slight waste in re-listing required fields that the schema already marks as required.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the decisive information (global scope, permanence, the local alternative) plus the required body fields. It omits permission requirements and error behaviour on a duplicate id, which are minor gaps for this tool class.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's restatement of the four required fields is largely redundant with the schema; only 'latin key' for id and 'ru/en display names' for name add marginal meaning beyond the existing field descriptions.

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 and resource with scope: 'Create an org-global custom issue field.' The word 'org-global' immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tracker_localfields_create, which the description names 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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('CAUTION: global fields are organisation-wide and NOT deletable') and names the alternative for the narrower case ('prefer localfields_create for a single queue'). An agent can route between the two tools without opening either schema.

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