wafeq_custom_fields_create

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly warning that the operation is not idempotent and that calling twice creates two records. It also explains how to use idempotency_key to make retries safe, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnly and idempotent hints.

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 short and front-loaded with the WRITE signal, but it repeats itself: 'Create custom field' and 'Endpoint for creating a new custom field.' say essentially the same thing. The idempotency warning earns its place, but the redundant phrasing costs it a higher score.

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 create operation with a complex config schema, the description is adequate but sparse: it does not mention response shape, error conditions, or what happens after successful creation. The annotations cover idempotency and write-safety, and the schema covers parameters, so this is still callable, but an agent lacks some operational context.

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%, and the schema already thoroughly documents body parameters, the config oneOf structure, and idempotency_key semantics. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the operation: 'creating a new custom field' via 'POST /custom-fields/'. It names the specific resource and verb, and this inherently distinguishes it from sibling custom field tools for listing, retrieving, updating, and deleting.

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 context: use this endpoint when creating a new custom field. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as update or retrieve, but the idempotency guidance adds practical usage context around retries and duplicate creation.

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