create_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates this is a write operation ('作成します' - creates), provides formatting requirements ('各フィールドは { "value": ... } の形式で指定します' - each field must be specified in { "value": ... } format), and gives a comprehensive example showing various field types and their expected structures. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by usage guidance, then parameter formatting rules, and finally a comprehensive example. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, though the lengthy example (while valuable) makes it less concise than ideal.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, prerequisites, parameter formatting, and examples. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens on success/failure or the response format, but given the comprehensive example and guidance, it's quite complete for practical use.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the 'fields' parameter structure in detail ('各フィールドは { "value": ... } の形式で指定します' - each field must be specified in { "value": ... } format) and providing an extensive example showing how different field types should be formatted. This goes well beyond what the schema's minimal description 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 specific action ('新しいレコードを作成します' - creates a new record) and resource ('kintoneアプリ' - Kintone app), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_records' (plural) and 'update_record'. It provides a complete operational definition beyond just restating the name.

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 explicitly recommends when to use this tool ('事前に対象アプリのフィールド構造を把握するため' - to understand the target app's field structure beforehand) and names specific alternative tools to use first ('get_form_fields' and 'get_form_layout'). It provides clear prerequisites and sequencing guidance.

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