conduyt_create_custom_field

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely does not. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the field can later be removed (a delete sibling exists), what happens to existing contact/deal records when a required field is added, or whether fieldKey collisions error out.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the type vocabulary second. The enum repetition is the only slightly wasted clause, but it is short and scannable.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should mention that a field object/id is returned and that options is conditionally required. The fully documented schema covers the inputs, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than inadequate.

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 every one of the 8 parameters is already documented in the schema; the description's field-type list merely restates the fieldType enum. It adds no meaning about the required options pairing for select types or about how entityType/fieldKey interact.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create a custom field definition) and scopes it to the three entity types it applies to. The verb itself separates it from conduyt_update_custom_field, conduyt_list_custom_fields and conduyt_delete_custom_field, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Create a new custom field definition', but there is no guidance on prerequisites (admin/permission requirements), when to prefer editing an existing field via conduyt_update_custom_field, or the rule that select/multiselect types require the options array. An agent must infer all of that.

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