create_custom_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create' and lists parameters; it does not disclose return value, permissions, side effects, idempotency, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, 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 concise and well-structured: one clear purpose line followed by a compact bullet-like list of parameters. Every line adds value and there is no redundant 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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: clear purpose, all parameters explained, and workflow context. It could mention return behavior or that update_custom_field exists for modifications, but the description is sufficient for a straightforward create operation.

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 input schema has zero descriptions, but the description fully compensates by explaining all 7 parameters, including naming format (alphanumeric/snake_case), purpose of each, optionality, and specific context (e.g., 'options' for select fields, 'validation' as regex/constraint dictionary). This adds rich meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 metadata field for workflows' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_custom_field, list_custom_fields, and update_custom_field by its 'create' operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that update_custom_field is for modifying existing fields or that list_custom_fields shows current fields. The description implies usage through its parameter list but provides no explicit context.

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