tomticket_add_custom_field_option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. The 'ATENCAO: altera producao' warning does disclose that this operation modifies production data, which is useful. However, it does not explain consequences such as irreversibility, permission requirements, duplicate handling, or effects on existing tickets or forms.

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 very compact: a production warning followed by a direct action statement. There is no redundant filler, and the important warning is front-loaded. It could be more informative, but for what it includes, every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It names the operation and warns about production impact. However, it lacks guidance on where custom_field_id comes from, what happens to existing data, and whether the operation can be undone, which is especially relevant given the production-change warning.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It partially does: 'opcao' maps to the 'value' parameter and 'campo personalizado' maps to 'custom_field_id'. Still, it does not clarify the expected format of 'value', uniqueness constraints, or how to locate the correct custom_field_id.

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 states a specific action—'Adiciona opcao em campo personalizado' (adds an option to a custom field)—clearly identifying the verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from the sibling tool 'tomticket_remove_custom_field_option', which performs the opposite operation. The warning 'altera producao' adds context but is not the core purpose.

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 an option needs to be added to a custom field. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites such as needing to list custom fields first to obtain the custom_field_id. Usage is inferable from the action verb but not clearly routed against sibling tools.

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