manage_fields

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds context about fieldset association requirements but does not detail potential side effects of delete or other mutations. The description adds some contextual value beyond annotations but lacks depth.

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 well-structured with an intro, action list, and return type. It is concise without being overly terse, though the first sentence is slightly redundant with the action list.

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 tool with 7 actions and 9 parameters, the description provides sufficient overview and prerequisites. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. It could add more on edge cases or destructive consequences, but overall it is complete enough for effective 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that create requires field_data with name and element, which is not fully captured in the schema's optional subfields. Most other parameter semantics are already present in the schema.

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 states the tool manages Snipe-IT custom fields with CRUD operations and enumerates all seven actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_fieldsets by focusing specifically on custom fields rather than fieldsets.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (to manage custom fields) and includes important prerequisites like fields needing to be associated with fieldsets. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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