Create global custom field option

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the endpoint and body type ('application/json'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on success, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 misses critical information. While it is concise, it is under-specified for practical use. The front-loading is minimal; it could be improved by adding parameter hints or usage context.

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 two parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, how to construct the 'path' object, or how the 'color' choices affect the option. The agent would need to rely solely on the schema.

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 description coverage is 0%; the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of the 'body' or 'path' parameters, nor does it clarify the color enum or the required 'name' field. The agent must infer everything from the 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 the action ('Create global custom field option') and provides the HTTP endpoint. The title and name align with the tool's function, and the inclusion of 'global' helps differentiate it from similar custom field option tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'weeek_create_a_custom_field_option'.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as for non-global custom fields or for updating options.

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