create_lookup_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. While '生成します' (generates) implies a creation/write operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on conflict (e.g., duplicate field codes), whether the creation is reversible, or any rate limits. The example shows a JSON structure but doesn't explain behavioral aspects beyond the basic operation.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences and an example, but it's not optimally structured. The first sentence states the purpose, while the second provides character constraints. The example JSON is helpful but takes significant space. The description could be more front-loaded with clearer usage context before diving into implementation details.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and provides an example, but lacks important context: no output information, no error handling details, no permission requirements, and no differentiation from similar tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself doesn't provide enough standalone guidance for this complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides allowed characters for field codes and shows a JSON example that illustrates some parameter usage. However, it doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's already in the comprehensive schema descriptions.

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: 'ルックアップフィールドの設定を生成します' (generates lookup field settings). It specifies the verb ('生成します' - generates) and resource ('ルックアップフィールドの設定' - lookup field settings). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_choice_field' or 'create_reference_table_field', which appear to be related field creation 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from other field creation tools like 'create_choice_field' or 'create_reference_table_field' in the sibling list. 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.