add_custom_field_to_field_group

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

The description adds 'Reversible' and states it 'links records', which goes beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only or destructive. However, it does not disclose error states or behavior for duplicate entries.

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 includes a cryptic prefix ('🟡 WRITE · links records · Group Members · POST /groupMembers') that is not immediately helpful and repeats the tool title. It could be more streamlined.

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 no output schema and nested parameters. The description does not explain the response format, prerequisites (e.g., field group must exist), or potential side effects, leaving important gaps for a write 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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, e.g., not explaining that rel_id is a custom field ID or how ordernum interacts with existing orders.

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 states the tool 'Add Custom Field to Field Group' and explains it 'Creates an association between records'. However, the examples (e.g., 'tags a contact') are broader than the actual function, introducing slight ambiguity. The verb 'add' and resource are clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_a_custom_field_group or update_custom_field_field_group. The description lacks context for selecting this tool correctly among siblings.

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