create_custom_deal_field_value

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces the non-idempotency with a warning about duplicates. This adds marginal value beyond the annotations but does not contradict them. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, return format) are disclosed.

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 concise, consisting of a metadata line and two short sentences. The metadata provides quick context (method, resource, HTTP verb). However, it could be better structured (e.g., using bullet points for key facts). Overall, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description should ideally explain the response or error conditions. It does not, but the input schema is fully described. The duplicate warning adds some context. Given the low complexity (a single nested parameter), the description is minimally adequate but 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter with clear descriptions (e.g., fieldValue explains currency handling). The description does not add any further parameter semantics; baseline of 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 explicitly states 'Create a custom field value' and 'Creates a new record', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like update_a_custom_deal_field_value or retrieve_a_custom_deal_field_value, which would be helpful given the similar names.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or retrieve). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the custom field must exist) or when not to use it. The only usage hint is the idempotency warning, but it lacks explicit context for decision-making.

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