create_field

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey. While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description does not explain side effects like schema changes, permissions required, or behavior when the field already exists. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to read and front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices informative richness for brevity.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides only a bare statement of intent. There is no mention of return values, schema impact, required permissions, or potential failure modes. The tool's complexity demands more context than this minimal description supplies.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only minimal context ('field' and 'collection'), but does not meaningfully enhance understanding of optional parameters like options, validation, or interface. Baseline 3 applies due to complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific action (create) and resource (a new field in a collection), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_field, delete_field, and create_collection. It unambiguously communicates what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_field, delete_field, or create_relationship. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool over a sibling.

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