Create Custom Field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive nature is structurally known. The description adds the account-level scope and the list of allowed types, but it does not disclose side effects, duplicate-name behavior, limits, or response behavior. It is consistent with annotations and adds minor context, but not rich behavioral detail.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence usefully enumerates supported types. The first sentence largely restates the tool name/title, but the overall length is appropriate with 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?

For a simple creation tool with full schema coverage and non-conflicting annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to identify the operation and the allowed type values. However, it omits any mention of what a successful creation returns, whether names must be unique, and when to prefer this over sibling tools. No output schema exists, so a little more context about the operation's result would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of types ('text, number, date, datetime, boolean') duplicates the enum in the schema without adding format details, constraints, or examples. This is the baseline score for a fully covered schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new custom field in the ManyChat account.' It is clear that this tool is for creating field definitions rather than, for example, tagging subscribers or setting field values. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like manychat_set_field, so it stops just short of perfect clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manychat_create_tag or manychat_set_field. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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