create_choice_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'generates settings' but doesn't clarify whether this creates a new field in a system, returns configuration data, or has side effects. It doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, or what happens after generation. The example shows input format but not behavioral consequences.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences and an example. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides character constraints. The example is helpful but could be more concise. No wasted words, though the example takes significant space.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and provides an example, but doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or what the tool actually does with the generated settings. Given the complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides an example showing how parameters fit together and mentions allowed characters for the 'code' field. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose: '選択肢フィールド（ラジオボタン、チェックボックス、ドロップダウン、複数選択）の設定を生成します' (generates settings for choice fields). This specifies the verb ('生成します' - generates) and resource ('選択肢フィールドの設定' - choice field settings). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_lookup_field' or 'create_reference_table_field', which appear to create other field types in the same system.

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. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might be needed, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_lookup_field' or 'update_field'. The example shows usage but doesn't provide contextual guidance.

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