create_a_customfieldmeta

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds the valuable warning: 'Not idempotent — calling twice may create duplicates.' This goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating the duplicate risk. No contradictions 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a header. Front-loads the operation type and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every element earns its place.

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 a nested object parameter with required fields, and no output schema. The description is minimal but combined with the schema and annotations it provides adequate context for a simple create operation. However, it lacks details about response format, error conditions, or any special behaviors beyond idempotency. Could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully describes the parameter 'body' and its nested properties like fieldLabel, fieldType, etc. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it creates a custom field ("Create a custom field") and specifies "Account Custom Field Meta" in the header. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_custom_deal_field_meta and create_a_contact_custom_field, though not explicitly. The purpose is clear but could be more explicit about the account 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Nothing about prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when or why to choose it over siblings.

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