Custom Field Defs Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful facts beyond the annotations: the required OAuth scope, the unstable API version, and the exact POST path with the {entity} path segment.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action, then operational metadata. Zero filler; the API-version note is slightly redundant since 'unstable' already appears in the first line.

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?

For a two-param mutation with no output schema, the description plus the rich schema covers scope, endpoint and payload expectations adequately. It does not describe the response body or whether the created definition can be updated later, which would be a modest improvement.

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 100% and both required parameters are documented there, including the entity enum and the definition shape hint. The description adds only the {entity} path templating, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create a custom field definition' with the HTTP endpoint spelled out. It implicitly distinguishes itself from tiendanube_custom_fields_create (which sets values) by naming 'definition', though it never explicitly contrasts with that near-identical sibling name.

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 unstable-API caveat and required scope give useful context, but there is no statement of when to use this versus tiendanube_custom_fields_create or the defs_list/get/delete siblings. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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