add_schema_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only reveals the confirmation requirement, but omits other behaviors like idempotency, error conditions, or effects on existing fields.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be more structured with parameter details.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what each parameter does, how the tool behaves beyond the confirmation flag, or what the response looks like.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only explains the 'confirmed' parameter implicitly. The remaining 7 parameters (e.g., field_name, field_type) are left to the agent to infer from their names.

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 action ('Add a single new field') and the resource ('existing tenant fieldgroup'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like deprecate_schema_field or bulk_create_offers.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires confirmed: true to execute') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as bulk_create_offers or deprecate_schema_field.

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