create_custom_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate mutation safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the mandatory currency prefix format for monetary fields, which is a constraint on accepted values beyond the schema.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded and the monetary format exception is stated clearly and compactly.

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 description is adequate for a simple create operation with a clear resource type. It lacks context on what custom fields are used for, whether names must be unique, or any side effects beyond creation. However, given the tool's simplicity and the clarity of the sibling set, it covers the most critical information without an output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only partially addresses data_type by listing the enum values (already present in the schema) and adds a note on monetary value formatting, but it does not explain the 'name' parameter or the purpose/usage of 'extra_data'. This is a significant gap given the zero coverage.

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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (custom field), and lists the allowed data types. It clearly distinguishes from sibling create tools (e.g., create_tag, create_correspondent) by naming the resource type 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?

The description implies when to use (when creating a custom field) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. It offers no guidance on selecting this over other create operations, though the resource name makes the intended use obvious.

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