cases_create_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and allowed types, offering no insight into side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.

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 the main action front-loaded and a compact list of types. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or irrelevant 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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain what a 'domain' is in this context, whether creation is idempotent, or any constraints beyond field_type. The description leaves too many unanswered questions for a 4-parameter tool 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?

The schema has zero coverage (no parameter descriptions), and the description only adds meaning for field_type by listing allowed values. It leaves domain_id, name, and description completely unexplained, forcing reliance on parameter names alone. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Create a custom field' with a specific verb and resource, immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like cases_list_fields (list) and cases_update_field (update). The list of allowed field types further clarifies the tool's 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 the tool is for creating custom fields, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. The absence of any exclusions makes it minimally acceptable, but the guidance is only implicit, not explicit.

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