Field Storage Create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies almost nothing: it does not say whether this creates a config entity, whether it requires a pre-existing field type/module, whether it also creates the field instance on a bundle, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding. But brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it does not earn above a middle score.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and a nested settings object, one bare sentence is insufficient. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but nothing else an agent needs in order to call this correctly is present.

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 0% across five parameters (field_name, field_type, label, settings, description). The description adds no meaning for any of them, leaving field_type allowed values and the settings object shape entirely unexplained.

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 verb plus resource (create + field storage configuration), so it is not pure tautology. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the very close siblings field_config_create, field_storage_update, or field_config_get, and 'field storage configuration' is left undefined.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as field_config_create (which concurrently creates the field instance) or field_storage_list. The agent must infer the entire selection context.

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