add_custom_field_value

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

The annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict that; 'Add' clearly indicates a modifying operation. The description adds some functional context (supported field types, single vs bulk mode), but it does not disclose details such as whether additions are reversible, how duplicates are handled, or what effects the change has on existing data.

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 two sentences and every part earns its place: the action and accepted field types are front-loaded, then the single-vs-bulk usage is stated clearly. There is no redundant jargon or 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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not specify behavior when both Name and Values are provided, duplicate handling, empty input behavior, or what a successful call returns. These gaps are not fatal because the schema covers parameters and the annotations cover destructiveness, but more behavioral detail 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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful meaning by clarifying that Name is for adding a single value and Values is for adding multiple values, a key semantic distinction that the schema itself does not explicitly state. This disambiguation goes beyond what the structured schema provides.

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 a specific action ('Add one or more selectable values') and a specific resource ('to a custom field'), and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_custom_field by focusing on adding option values rather than creating the field itself. The mention of Select/Autocomplete types further sharpens the purpose.

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 useful parameter-level guidance ('Pass a single value with Name, or multiple values with the Values array'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_custom_field or apply_custom_field. The usage context is implied by the phrase 'to a custom field' but no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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