parse_add_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the master key requirement (auth need), but lacks information on side effects, such as schema modification, potential errors if the field exists, or irreversibility. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. It efficiently includes parameter names and the master key requirement without wasted 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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. The description covers the core purpose and some parameters, but lacks crucial context such as return values, error handling, behavior on duplicate fields, and impact on existing data. The omission of className from the parameter list is a notable gap.

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 the description partially compensates by listing fieldName, fieldType, targetClass, required, and defaultValue, with fieldType examples. However, it omits className, a required parameter, and the schema already provides property descriptions, so the added value is modest.

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 the tool adds a new field to an existing class, using the specific verb 'Añade' and resource 'campo a una clase existente'. It distinguishes from siblings like parse_delete_field and parse_create_class, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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 the tool (when adding a field to an existing class) but doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use. It does mention the master key requirement, providing a precondition for use.

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