pipedrive_create_deal_field

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe create operation. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the response includes data.field_code (a 40-char hash) that must be kept for future updates/deletes. This is beyond annotation information and helps the agent understand post-creation actions.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by key requirements and a critical response detail. Every sentence is informative and necessary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides essential information: purpose, required parameters, and a critical response note. The schema covers the parameters adequately. Missing some broader context (e.g., field creation limits or validation) but sufficient for selection and invocation.

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. The description adds value by explicitly stating that field_name and field_type are required and that options is required for enum/set types, which is not fully captured in the schema's parameter descriptions. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like ui_visibility or important_fields, which are explained in 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 'Create a deal custom field', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pipedrive_create_organization_field by name and context. The addition of required parameters further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pipedrive_update_deal_field or other create_field tools. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites beyond parameter requirements.

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