Create Custom Item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a mutation that creates persistent state, whether any permissions are required, or how errors are handled. The only extra info is the enum note, which is parameter semantics, not behavior. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second delivers the most important caveat about enum values. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical note is front-loaded for discoverability.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, 2 required, and a complex nested `content` object with no output schema. The description addresses only one case (INPUT_FIELD/ACTIVITY_FIELD) and leaves content requirements for other item types unspecified. It also lacks guidance on usage and return values. While sufficient for a narrow use case, it is incomplete for the full range of item types.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all properties, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds critical clarifications for the nested `content` object, specifying valid enum values for `type` ('numeric' | 'text' | 'select') and `aggregate` (MIN|SUM|MAX|AVERAGE) that are not present in the schema. This genuinely goes beyond the schema's generic 'object' description, adding meaningful parameter insight.

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 opens with 'Buat custom item baru' (Create a new custom item), which is a specific verb + resource. The parenthetical '(chart/field/zones)' clarifies the scope of item types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_custom_item, delete_custom_item, and get_custom_items.

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 usage by its verb ('Buat' = create), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, mention any prerequisites, or provide exclusions. There is no reference to update/delete tools or conditions under which creation might be inappropriate. This is implied usage at best.

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