create_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and parameter meanings; it does not disclose return behavior, failure modes (e.g., duplicate field names), or side effects such as where the field is inserted.

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?

A single clear purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 purpose and parameter semantics well, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not necessarily required. However, the lack of usage guidance versus sibling field tools and the absence of side-effect disclosure keep it from being fully complete, especially with no annotations.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining all four parameters. The direction 0/1 mapping and doc_id provenance from open_document are genuinely useful; name and memo are minimal but still map correctly to schema properties.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('named field'), with the parenthetical 'placeholder for templates' clarifying the kind of field. This distinguishes it from sibling field tools like get_field_text, rename_field, and put_field_text, which operate on existing fields rather than creating placeholders.

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 use when a new template placeholder field is needed, and 'doc_id: Document ID from open_document' gives a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus the many sibling field-manipulation tools.

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