create_custom_deal_field_meta

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

The description explicitly states the tool is not idempotent, going beyond annotations which only set idempotentHint: false. It also labels the operation as 'WRITE' creating data. However, it does not disclose error behaviors, rate limits, or side effects beyond duplication.

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 extremely concise: one line with emoji and method, then the purpose, then a key behavioral note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant content.

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?

As a creation tool with no output schema, the description should mention what the response contains (e.g., created object). It also lacks information about required fields (fieldLabel and fieldType) which are only in the schema. The description feels incomplete for an agent to understand the full effect.

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% with all properties having descriptions. The description itself adds no additional parameter information beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('custom field meta' for deals), and even includes the HTTP POST endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_a_customfieldmeta' (generic) and 'create_custom_deal_field_value' by specifying 'deal' and 'meta'.

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 vs. alternatives. Among many sibling create tools, the description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or comparison with similar tools like 'create_a_customfieldmeta' or 'create_custom_deal_field_value'.

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