Add a field to a kind

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing real mutation effects: the type's schema file and its table change at once, existing records are backfilled to read as the field's default (or nothing when none is set), and the response reports how many records there are and what they received. It also confirms non-destructiveness in concrete terms rather than just asserting it.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the whole thing is one tight sequence of clauses with no filler. Slightly dense with stacked colons, but every clause carries distinct information about the mutation and its result.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description usefully covers both the write semantics and what the answer contains, which compensates for the missing output schema. The only real gap is routing versus change_field and add_type, which the description never addresses.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including the enum values and the ref/enum companion fields. The description's examples (due date, priority) loosely illustrate name/default but add no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a property to a content type') and grounds it with concrete examples (a due date on notes, a priority on tasks). However it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling change_field, so an agent must infer which one to reach for when the field concept already exists.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Adding is safe; nothing else they hold changes' signals this is the additive path, but no explicit when-not condition or named alternative (change_field, add_type) is given. The agent can guess the boundary but is not told it.

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