create_queue_local_field

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds nothing beyond that. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters it does not disclose required permissions, behavior on duplicate field keys, or what defaults apply to the optional flags.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is not verbose, though it is arguably under-specified rather than efficient; the brevity is appropriate in form.

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?

With 11 parameters, nested objects (name, optionsProvider), no output schema, and only 55% schema coverage, the description is far too thin to call the tool correctly. It leaves field-type encoding, localization format, and multi-value semantics unexplained.

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 55%, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all - no explanation of id vs name, the localized name object, field type encoding, or how container/readonly/visible interact. For an 11-parameter tool this leaves several parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (local/queue-specific issue field), and the parenthetical 'queue-specific' distinguishes it from global field creation like create_issue_field. It does not name the sibling directly, but the scope qualifier is enough for an agent to differentiate.

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 choose this over create_issue_field (global) or when to use update_queue_local_field instead. Prerequisites such as queue existence or permissions are unmentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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