asana_create_custom_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds the 'design the board schema' contextual note but does not disclose side effects or prerequisites beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver the essential purpose, subtype constraint, and enum_option guidance with no filler. The key information is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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?

Given a 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core usage and special cases effectively. It could mention return behavior or error conditions, but for a create operation the essential details are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concise reminder of the resource_subtype enum and the enum_options structure, which slightly reinforces the schema but doesn't provide extra semantic depth beyond what the schema already defines.

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' with a clear resource 'workspace custom field' and adds 'design the board schema' to signal its intent. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_custom_field or add_enum_option by specifying creation and subtype guidance.

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 concrete guidance for enum/multi_enum subtypes (pass enum_options), which helps with conditional usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like add_enum_option or update_project, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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