spatial_create_field

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses meaningful side effects: it "starts FieldCreation" and "reloads the intersect config", explicitly noting that it "changes spatial-service". This is valuable behavioral context that the annotations and schema do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by side effects. The parenthetical "wiki step 5" is somewhat cryptic but does not add unnecessary 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?

The description communicates the core operation and important side effects, but with 11 parameters and no output schema, an agent still lacks guidance on required fields, return behavior, or how the asynchronous FieldCreation result is surfaced. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but schema coverage is 73% and the input schema already documents key parameters like dryRun, confirm, sname, and indb. The description names no parameters itself, so it neither improves nor harms the schema's semantic baseline.

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 and resource: "Add a field to a layer", which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spatial_create_layer, spatial_get_field, and spatial_update_field. The parenthetical "wiki step 5" adds workflow context without obscuring the core action.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The "wiki step 5" hint implies a workflow sequence but does not tell the agent when this is the right tool versus spatial_update_field or spatial_create_layer.

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