Create a custom field option

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

No annotations are given, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and HTTP details, omitting side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very short, but it is front-loaded with the HTTP method and path. However, it lacks substance beyond technical details, which would make it insufficient for an agent to understand its purpose relative to siblings.

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 lack of output schema and the presence of nested objects, the description should explain what the option represents and what the API returns. It does not, leaving the agent without critical information for correct usage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage; neither the schema nor the description explains what each parameter (body.name, body.color, path.project_id, path.custom_field_id) means or how they affect behavior. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's structure.

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 'Create a custom field option' and includes the HTTP method and path, which makes the action and resource explicit. However, it does not differentiate among the three sibling tools with similar names (weeek_create_a_custom_field_option, _2, _3), so it is not fully distinctive.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like weeek_create_a_custom_field_option_2 or _3. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use is provided.

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