Create a data field

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, and the description's 'Create' is consistent. The description adds useful scope: the field is reusable and company-wide, and options are conditionally required. It does not disclose side effects like permission requirements or impact on existing forms, but annotations lower the burden here.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the critical validation rule in the second sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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 covers the tool's main purpose, scope, and a critical fieldType-options constraint. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The only real gap is that the choice-versus-text distinction could be more explicit against the 19 fieldType enum values, but the schema's options property partially fills this.

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 coverage is 67%, so the description should add some value beyond the schema. It does exactly that by explaining the key relationship: choice fields need options while text fields do not. This helps avoid invalid option handling for the many fieldType enum values, though it does not enumerate exactly which types count as choice fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a reusable form field, company-wide.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_contact or create_webhook, and the added nuance about choice versus text fields gives useful identity. The title is also expanded with meaningful scope.

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?

The description implies when to use it: when a reusable, company-wide form field is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, such as when a non-reusable or form-specific field would be more appropriate. The guidance is present but only by implication.

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