zda_create_ticket_field

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states creation but does not mention idempotency (e.g., if duplicate fields cause errors), required permissions, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 extremely concise: one sentence followed by a short list of common fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple structure (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose and parameter guidance. It lacks details on response format or error handling, but for a basic create tool, it is 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 for the single parameter, but the description adds semantic value by listing common fields (type, title, description, required, active, custom_field_options for dropdowns). This helps the agent understand what to include in the data object, going beyond the generic schema description.

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 'Create a new Zendesk ticket_field' with a specific verb and resource. It lists common fields, providing context. The tool is easily distinguishable from sibling create tools (e.g., zda_create_automation, zda_create_group) by its explicit reference to ticket_field.

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 for creating a ticket field but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions (e.g., when to use update instead), or prerequisites. It lacks alternatives or conditions, making the usage context clear but incomplete.

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