Create catalog custom fields

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

The annotation openWorldHint suggests uncertain side effects, but the description does not add any behavioral context such as implications for existing fields, validation, idempotency, or response format. The description carries no extra transparency beyond the basic action, which is insufficient for a mutation with open-world hint.

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 a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified for a tool with two required parameters and nested schema. It does not earn its place as it provides minimal value beyond the tool name. Conciseness is not a substitute for missing crucial information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested array of arbitrary objects), no output schema, and only an openWorldHint annotation, the description is grossly incomplete. It lacks details about required field properties, constraints, expected response, and typical usage. The description does not adequately inform an agent how to correctly invoke this 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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of catalog_id or the structure of the fields array. The field parameter is an array of objects with arbitrary properties, and the description gives no hint about required properties or field naming conventions. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Add custom fields to a catalog' clearly identifies the action (create/add), the target resource (catalog custom fields), and distinguishes from sibling tools like kommo_custom_fields_create and kommo_catalog_custom_fields_update. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes kommo_custom_fields_create and kommo_catalog_custom_fields_update, but the description does not clarify that this tool is for catalog-specific fields or distinguish its use case. Missing exclusions or context.

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