Create custom field

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds the required scope (edit_products) and the per-call confirmation requirement, which go beyond the annotations. It does not state side effects on existing fields or what gets returned.

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?

Three brief clauses, front-loaded with the action, then scope, then the critical confirmation requirement. No filler.

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?

Covers the action, the underlying API, the required scope, and confirmation, which is solid for a mutation without an output schema. However, with destructiveHint=true and no output schema, it doesn't explain reversibility, effect on existing products, or the shape of the created field.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema largely documents parameters including the confirm flag's meaning. The description mentions per-call confirmation but adds no new semantics for the 5 parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Create custom field') and the description adds the native API endpoint (POST /products/:product_id/custom_fields) which confirms scope. Siblings like update_custom_field and delete_custom_field are distinguishable by the verb, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implicit usage only – 'Requires explicit per-call confirmation' hints at when confirmation is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., vs update_custom_field). The scopes hint narrows applicability but doesn't state exclusions.

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