Create Custom Property

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a propertyId, which is useful. It does not disclose side effects like duplicate handling or permission requirements, but annotations carry part of the burden.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It conveys the action, scope, types, and return value efficiently.

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 create operation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, types, and return value. It lacks explicit guidance on required workspaceId or error conditions, but the overall context is sufficient for basic use.

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 75%, with name and type already defined. The description adds the allowed values for type and implies workspaceId's role through 'workspace-wide'. It does not clarify icon or workspaceId beyond schema, so the added value is moderate.

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 a clear resource ('workspace-wide custom property definition'), enumerates the allowed types (text, number, checkbox, or date), and states the return value (propertyId). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_custom_property or set_doc_property.

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 phrase 'workspace-wide custom property definition' provides clear context that this tool is for creating global property definitions, not doc-level properties (which siblings handle). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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