add_case_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only conveys that a custom field is created, but does not mention side effects, visibility across projects, whether existing fields are affected, or what happens on creation. The mutation is implied by 'Create' but no deeper behavior is disclosed.

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 clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful context that could have been added without bloating the description.

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 create operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain required inputs, how configs and include_all interact, or what the successful response will be, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema and inference.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('custom case field'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like add_case and get_case_fields. It does not further explain that this creates the field definition rather than setting a field value, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_case_fields for listing existing fields or add_case for adding a test case. The description provides no context for selection or prerequisites.

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