create_custom_field

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

Annotations already mark this as not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds that Paperless rejects unknown extra_data shapes with a 400 error, which is helpful context for error handling. This is beyond annotations but still limited.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by bullet points for extra_data. It is front-loaded and each line adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (handling return values), the description covers input parameters well. It misses usage context and behavioral details beyond error conditions, but overall it is adequate for a create tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates fully: it explains how extra_data depends on data_type, providing detailed examples for each type (e.g., monetary, select). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 'Create a new custom field,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling create tools like create_tag or create_correspondent, though the name makes it obvious.

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 implies usage when a new custom field is needed, but it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions or context are given.

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