Create Custom Field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:false, so the write nature is known. The description adds that it creates a 'new' field 'for contacts,' which is useful but does not disclose any additional side effects, idempotency, or return behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, compact sentence conveying the essential action and scope with no redundant wording.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only states the basic action. It does not explain selection of dataType, the role of options, or what response to expect, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 covers 60% of parameters with descriptions (name, options, dataType), but the tool description itself adds no parameter semantics. It does not clarify the meaning of locationId, placeholder, or the dependency of options on dataType, so the description contributes little beyond the 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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'custom field' and scopes it to 'contacts.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like ghl_list_custom_fields and other create tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. The context implies usage when a contact custom field needs to be created, but it doesn't mention its relationship to ghl_list_custom_fields or when not to use it.

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