Create Form Field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention the 200-with-existing-field no-op behavior, the team form-set provisioning side effect, or any permission requirement, all of which are material for a create call.

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?

At six words it is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: there is no front-loaded statement of what gets created, what is required, or what happens on conflict. Every sentence that exists is filler ("from provided data").

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?

This is a complex creation tool with a large nested body, ~35 enum kinds, an incident/problem resource_type split, and side effects like default problem form provisioning. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description supplies none of the operational context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 reported at 0% for the single top-level `data` parameter, and the description does not compensate — it says only "from provided data". The nested attributes happen to be richly documented in the schema itself, but the tool description contributes no meaning about required fields, the type discriminator, or how kind/resource_type interact.

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 reads "Creates a new form_field from provided data", which is essentially the tool name and title restated with the filler phrase "from provided data". It conveys a verb and a resource, but offers no distinction from siblings like update_form_field, create_custom_field, or create_form_field_option.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than update_form_field, create_custom_field, or list_form_fields, and no preconditions such as required permissions or the need for Problem Management to be enabled. The agent must infer all routing and eligibility from the schema alone.

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