create_custom_meta_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It only restates the action without disclosing side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens on creation. This offers no behavioral transparency beyond the tool's name.

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 one short sentence, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no structure or additional information, and the brevity doesn't serve the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain return values, validation rules, or the purpose of the field 'type', making it impossible to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters or their meanings. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess which of the 9 parameters are essential or how they relate to each other.

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 a custom metadata field' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_custom_meta_fields and get_custom_meta_field by indicating creation, though it doesn't clarify the context (e.g., asset metadata) or why one would create a field.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention relevant prerequisites (e.g., existing taxonomies or metadata schemas) or contrast with set_asset_custom_meta, which applies values to assets. The usage context is completely absent.

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