Create custom field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a workspace custom field' without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on invalid input. The guidance on dropdown types is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with no 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the action, the second provides critical guidance for dropdown types. 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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, how to use the created custom field, or that types other than dropdown do not need enum_options. The schema covers some parameters, but the overall context is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 50%, so the description adds some value by clarifying that dropdown types require enum_options and explaining 'enum' vs 'multi_enum'. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like name, type (beyond the enum), description, precision, or workspace_gid, which have limited or no schema descriptions. The description provides marginal improvement over the schema.

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 a workspace custom field') and the resource ('custom field'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like custom_field_update by being a create operation. The additional guidance on dropdown types adds specificity, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other create tools.

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 specific guidance on when to use 'enum' or 'multi_enum' types and to pass enum_options for dropdowns. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use this tool, such as when to use enum_option_create instead, or prerequisites like workspace ownership.

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