Custom Fields Create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value the annotations cannot: the exact HTTP method/path, per-entity OAuth scope requirements, and the pinned API version. It stops short of disclosing behavior on duplicate field names or what happens to existing values, so it is strong rather than complete.

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?

Four tight lines: purpose first, then endpoint, scopes, and version. Every line carries operational information, with only the API-version line being near-boilerplate across sibling tools.

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 7-parameter mutation with nested objects (values array, additional_fields) and no output schema, the definition covers auth and endpoint but says nothing about uniqueness constraints, validation rules per value_type, or what identifier is returned. Adequate to invoke, insufficient to predict results.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the entity and value_type enums is already documented in the schema. The description's scope table loosely maps entities to permission scopes, adding marginal meaning but no format, default, or interaction details beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Define a custom field for an entity') plus the concrete HTTP path POST /{entity}/custom-fields, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling tiendanube_custom_field_defs_create, leaving the agent to guess which of the two overlapping 'create' tools to use.

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?

No explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of the custom_field_defs / set_values siblings. Usage is only implied by the endpoint path and the required-scope table, which tells the agent what permissions are needed but not when this tool is the right choice.

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