Create Field Dependency (Controlling/Dependent Picklist)

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful runtime behavior ('only the relevant dependent field values appear') and an example, but does not disclose potential edge cases like field validation, overwriting existing dependencies, or deployment implications. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a concrete example that enhances understanding without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity and full parameter schema coverage, the description provides sufficient conceptual context through the example and the explanation of runtime behavior. It lacks some edge-case details, but the existing annotations and schema fill most gaps, making it largely complete.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the relationship between controlling and dependent fields but does not add additional details beyond what the schema already offers, such as syntax or format specifics.

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 specific action: 'Creates a field dependency between a controlling picklist and a dependent picklist on the same object.' It uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('field dependency'), and includes an illustrative example that distinguishes it from sibling tools like creating custom fields or picklist values.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'on the same object' and giving a concrete example, making it clear when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for comparison, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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