Create Tracker local field

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

Annotations cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: there is no delete endpoint and the field persists until its queue is deleted, which is important lifecycle information for a create-only resource.

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 compact sentences: the operation and its scope are front-loaded, followed by required-field details and the lifecycle caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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 create-only tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, required fields, the cross-tool dependency for `category`, and the irreversible lifecycle. It does not mention permission requirements or what the created resource returns, which are the only notable remaining gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by tying `category` to a concrete source ('a category id from fields_list') and clarifying the format expectations for `id` (latin key) and `type` (full field-type identifier), which are cross-tool and format hints the schema does not provide.

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 ('Create a custom field') and immediately narrows the scope with 'scoped to one queue (a local field)', which separates it from the sibling tracker_fields_create for global fields. An agent can distinguish it from tracker_localfields_get/update/list without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'scoped to one queue', which tells the agent this is the queue-local variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or a named alternative such as tracker_fields_create. The required-fields list is helpful context but is not routing guidance.

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