createDealCustomField

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only offers a naming tip but does not mention idempotency, permissions, possible errors, or what the response looks like. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a practical tip. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior on success, return value, duplicate handling, or how to use it alongside sibling tools like 'createCustomField'. The naming hint is helpful but insufficient for a full understanding.

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 low (43%); the description adds meaningful context for two parameters ('label' and 'choices') by clarifying the correct field names expected by the API. However, the remaining five parameters (type, isRecurring, hideIfEmpty, orderWeight, readOnly) are not addressed, so compensation is partial.

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') and the resource ('deal custom field'), and distinguishes from sibling 'createCustomField' by specifying the deal-specific context. The naming hint further clarifies the exact field names expected by the API, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createCustomField' (which may create custom fields for other entities). It also lacks information on prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use the tool.

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