cigchat_flow_create_user_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context: the required 'Manage Flow' scope and the HTTP method POST. However, it does not disclose whether creation is idempotent, what happens if a field with the same name exists, error conditions, or the response format. This is a partial disclosure but lacks depth expected for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('create new user field'), then adds the endpoint and scope requirement. There is zero fluff or redundant information. Every part earns its place.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the operation and auth requirement but does not cover what the API returns on success or failure, how conflicts are handled, or how a user field affects subscribers. For a moderate-complexity create operation, this is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 80%, with rich descriptions for `name`, `value`, `var_ns`, and `var_type` (including examples and allowed values). The only param without a description is `description` (no text provided). The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides strong semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'create new user field', which clearly states the action (create) and the resource (user field). It also includes the endpoint and required scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools like `cigchat_flow_update_user_field` and `cigchat_flow_delete_user_field`, the verb 'create' clearly differentiates it.

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 usage through the verb 'create' and the resource, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the scope requirement. There is no explicit reference to related tools like `cigchat_flow_update_user_field` or `cigchat_subscriber_set_user_field`, so the guidance is mostly implicit.

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