appflowy_create_database_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions mutation ('add') but does not explain effects on existing data, required permissions, reversibility, or error states. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name implies.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with a nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits details about required inputs, the meaning of field_type values, optional type_option_data, and overall workflow context. A more complete description would aid correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

The description does not elaborate on any parameters (workspace_id, database_id, request, name, field_type, type_option_data). Given that schema description coverage is 0% (or very low), the description should compensate, but it fails to add meaning beyond the schema. The only parameter with a description in the schema (field_type with enum mapping) is not reinforced by the tool description.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a new field (column) to a database.' It uses a specific verb (add) and resource (field/column), and distinguishes from sibling tools like appflowy_create_row (adds rows) or appflowy_get_database_fields (retrieves fields).

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 (e.g., appflowy_create_row, appflowy_get_database_fields). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring an existing database or workspace. No 'when-not-to-use' or explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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