Add Form Fields

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses preview-only operation, permission requirements, field code constraints, option key matching, and the need for deployment. However, it does not mention idempotency, error behavior beyond revision mismatch, or rate limits. Still, for an additive tool, key behaviors are covered.

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 a single paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: permissions, constraints, special rules, pre-check suggestion, deployment note. It could be more structured (bullets) but is not verbose. It earns its length.

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 the complexity of the input schema (many field types, nested objects), the description provides high-level guidance and important workflow steps (pre-check, deploy). The output schema likely covers return values (not shown). It is fairly complete for an add tool, though some edge cases (e.g., error handling) are not detailed.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant extra meaning: field code constraints (unique, max 128 chars, no leading numbers, only underscore), option requirements (keys must match labels, require label and index), lookup field type hints. These details are absent from the schema. However, not all parameters are elaborated (e.g., subtable fields structure is left to 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 'Add new fields to a kintone app (preview environment only)' and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Use kintone-get-form-fields first to check existing fields' and implying that deployment is needed via kintone-deploy-app. The verb 'Add' and resource 'form fields' are specific.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (preview only), prerequisites (App Management permissions, check existing fields), constraints (field code uniqueness, length, allowed characters), special rules for selection and lookup fields, and post-requisite (deploy to apply). It clearly guides the agent on correct invocation.

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