Create Field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. However the description adds no behavioral context of its own: it does not state required permissions, what happens on duplicate field names, whether the field is created empty, or what the free-form 'nested.field' definition must contain.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. But the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the one sentence carries almost no information, so it earns its place only weakly.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a mutating tool with a nested, undocumented field-definition payload and only two shallow annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent could not construct a valid field definition from this definition alone.

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?

At 67% schema description coverage and a free-form nested field object with additionalProperties and no property documentation, the description should carry real weight for the field definition. Instead it mentions no parameters at all, leaving the field payload shape ('Field definition') opaque.

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 gives a verb and a resource ('Create a new field in a table'), which is marginally more concrete than the title, but it is essentially the name expanded and adds no scope detail. It never distinguishes this from the sibling update_field, and it says nothing about what a 'field' can be beyond the 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus update_field, create_table, or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or context for invocation. The agent must infer entirely from the name.

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