add_custom_metadata_field

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it modifies the project's metadata schema, which is structural. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like affecting existing items or requiring permissions. The added context is moderate.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. The verb and resource are immediately clear. Optimal efficiency.

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 add operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete by noting that field_name must be unique, or that the field cannot be removed later. Given the context of project metadata schema, this information would help the agent avoid errors.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not add extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains parameter purpose and constraints.

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 ('Add') and resource ('custom metadata field') with a clear target ('project's metadata schema'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_metadata' or 'set_metadata' that operate on existing fields.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_metadata for existing fields, or other schema modifications). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description does not clarify that adding a duplicate field name may fail.

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