ghl_custom_field_create

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by stating 'Create'. The description adds OAuth scopes and a note about limited object support, providing context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior on duplicate field keys or idempotency, which annotations already flag as false.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it contains unnecessary HTML formatting and repetitive text ('Create Custom Field' twice), slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it is clear and compact.

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 complexity (nested schema, no output schema), the description covers the tool's scope and OAuth needs but omits the return value structure. For a creation tool, providing expected output would improve completeness. The schema carries the bulk of parameter detail.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; it only mentions supported objects indirectly, which does not enhance the schema's provided information.

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 'Create Custom Field' and specifies the supported objects (Custom Objects and Company), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_custom_field_delete and ghl_custom_field_update by its action (create) and scope limitation.

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 mentions that the tool only supports Custom Objects and Company today, providing some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives for unsupported objects, leaving the agent to infer.

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