create_custom_field

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and endpoint, omitting whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, or that dropdown types require a 'choices' array. It is not misleading but provides almost no behavioral insight.

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 with no fluff, redundancy, or wasted words, and the endpoint is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though so terse that it barely rises above the tool name in informational value.

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?

With 8 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It does not explain that 'choices' is needed for dropdown fields, what the POST response contains, or any operational context. The schema documents fields, but the description fails to provide the contextual glue needed to safely invoke this tool.

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%, with descriptive entries for all 8 parameters including enums, defaults, and notes like isRecurring being date-only. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('custom field') and includes the exact endpoint, making the action clear. However, it does not distinguish this generic custom field tool from the sibling create_deal_custom_field, so an agent may be unsure whether this creates person-level or deal-level custom fields.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_deal_custom_field, update_custom_field, or list_custom_fields. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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