ghl_location_create_custom_field

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

The description adds endpoint URL, version header, and OAuth scopes, which provide behavioral context beyond annotations (e.g., auth requirements). However, it omits any mention of the return format or response expectations, and annotations already cover safety traits.

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 concise, with only three lines and no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and provides necessary technical details efficiently.

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?

Despite the schema being detailed, the description lacks information about the output or return value, which is missing due to no output schema. Given the tool's complexity (nested body, required params) and the presence of similar siblings, the description should at least hint at the response or why to use this location-specific variant.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 action and resource ('Create Custom Field') and the endpoint indicates location-specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool ghl_custom_field_create, which may cause confusion; the distinction is only implied by the tool name.

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 like ghl_custom_field_create. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons with siblings.

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