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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the key nuance that 'Only included option keys are touched', which bounds how destructive the patch actually is and is not derivable from the annotations. It doesn't state permission requirements or whether a prior value can be recovered, so a full 5 is not warranted.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single dense run-on sentence with nested parentheses ('how a row opens; a form is refused...') that is awkward to parse and buries the crucial alternative-tool hint mid-clause. It could be split into an action sentence, an identification sentence, and a fallback sentence without losing content.

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?

A mutating tool with a nested options object and an output schema, so the description needn't explain returns; it covers the fields, the identification strategy, and patch scope. Missing only rationale for the destructive hint (what a bad patch could break) and any permission preconditions.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names every option key and clarifies 'title' as the display label distinct from the sheet attribute name, plus explains the layoutItemId vs attributeCode resolution rule including the 'matches first attribute item' caveat. The only gap is that it doesn't disambiguate the boolean `radius` from the integer `radiusSize` or note peekId's role.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Patch per-field options on a single item of a record layout', and enumerates the option fields. It also differentiates from form.update `editFields` for question label/required changes, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling peek.update_options, leaving the reader to infer that one targets layout-level and this one field-level options.

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?

Explicitly routes one case away to form.update `editFields` for form question labels/required flags, and explains how to identify the target item (layoutItemId from peek.read, or attributeCode which matches the first attribute item). No guidance is given on when to prefer peek.update_options instead, which is the most likely sibling confusion.

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