Create custom fields

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

The description provides no behavioral context beyond the creation action itself. With only openWorldHint: true in annotations, there is no mention of validation rules, idempotency, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens on duplicate field names. The description adds no transparency value beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by stating the core action and scope, though the brevity borders on under-specification. For conciseness and structure alone, it is excellent.

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 has two required parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description must provide more contextual detail to be complete. It does not explain the expected shape of field definitions, allowed field types, or response behavior, leaving a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool 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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'entity type' but gives no meaning to the fields array structure, such as what fields do, what propertyNames constraints apply, or how entity_type values map to API behavior. The description adds almost no parameter semantics.

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 a create operation on custom fields scoped to an entity type. The verb 'create' plus resource 'custom fields' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling update/list/delete custom-field tools, though it doesn't explicitly mention the catalog vs. core entity distinction.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_custom_fields_update, kommo_custom_fields_list, or kommo_catalog_custom_fields_create. The only implied usage is the bare action 'create', which offers little decision support.

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