rm_create_custom_field

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description is consistent with them — no contradiction. The description adds domain constraints (valid field_type and target_type values) but discloses no behavioral traits such as duplicate-name handling, uniqueness enforcement, or what happens to existing data after a definition is created.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the action verb and resource come first, and the parenthetical packs the enumerations compactly. Every word earns its place at roughly 20 words.

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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover mutation safety, so those needs are met. But the description omits the critical linkage between field_type='select' and the options parameter, which an agent could easily get wrong by passing null. For a simple 4-param tool, this is the one material gap preventing full self-sufficiency.

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 0% and no parameter has enums, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers the highest-value missing information: exact valid values for the two required string parameters. However, the meaning of 'options' (presumably the choice list for a select field) is never explained, leaving one of four parameters ambiguous.

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 definition' — with a parenthetical enumerating the allowed field_type values (text, number, select, date) and target_type values (Project, User, Phase). This clearly distinguishes it from the ~15 create siblings (rm_create_tag, rm_create_project, etc.) and from rm_set_custom_field_values, which populates values rather than defining fields.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It never names alternatives such as rm_update_custom_field for modifying existing definitions or rm_set_custom_field_values for filling in values, and it states no prerequisites. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool's name and the bare purpose statement.

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