create_reference_table_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'generates' settings, implying a creation/write operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether this is a preview or actual deployment, side effects, or response format. The example shows a JSON structure but doesn't explain what happens after generation.

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. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides character set guidance, and the example illustrates usage. However, the example only shows 5 of 11 parameters, which could be misleading about required vs optional parameters.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'generates settings' means operationally, doesn't clarify the tool's place in a workflow (e.g., whether this creates a field immediately or just generates configuration), and provides minimal guidance despite the complexity. The example helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides character set guidance for 'code' field and shows a partial example with 5 parameters. However, it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like relatedAppId vs relatedAppCode priority) or provide context beyond what's in the 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: '関連テーブルフィールドの設定を生成します' (generates related table field settings). It specifies the verb ('生成します' - generates) and resource ('関連テーブルフィールドの設定' - related table field settings). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_lookup_field' or 'create_choice_field', which appear to be similar 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 any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_lookup_field' or 'create_choice_field'. The example shows parameter usage but doesn't explain the tool's context within the broader system.

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