fields_create_person_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that after creation the field's 'key' is the hash to use in person create/update payloads, and notes the 15-minute cache. However, it does not mention required permissions (e.g., admin), idempotency, or error conditions (e.g., duplicate field names). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 relatively concise, using short paragraphs and bullet points. It front-loads the main action and then adds details and examples. It could be slightly trimmed (e.g., 'Common use cases' might be merged), but overall it's well-structured and easy to scan.

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 output schema, the description explains the result (key hash) and caching behavior. It covers the main steps for using the tool. However, it lacks information on error handling, validation, and any side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, it is reasonably complete but has gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter purposes. The description adds value by clarifying that `options` is required for `enum` and `set` field types and by providing concrete use cases (e.g., 'Lead Source' dropdown). However, it does not explain other parameter behaviors or constraints beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new custom field for persons.' It provides specific use cases (e.g., 'Lead Source' dropdown, LinkedIn URL, Birthday). The tool name and sibling context (e.g., fields_create_deal_field, fields_create_organization_field) further distinguish it, 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 gives clear usage context: when creating custom fields for persons, and lists common use cases. It also notes that field definitions are cached for 15 minutes and suggests calling fields_list_person_fields to see the new field. However, it does not explicitly compare to other field creation tools or state when not to use this tool, which is implicit from the tool name.

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