custom_fields_update_custom_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context, such as warning that updating options replaces the existing array (a nuance only present in the schema). It does not contradict annotations but provides zero value beyond them.

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 extremely brief, but it is not good conciseness—it is under-specification. It lacks any structural detail or front-loading of critical information that an agent would need to decide whether to call this tool.

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 rich annotations and schema, the description is incomplete. For an update operation with 9 parameters, it does not explain the effect of the update (e.g., options replacement), nor any return value or side effects. The schema covers some, but the description fails to synthesize usage context.

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 high (89%), so the schema documents most parameters. The description provides no additional information about parameters, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update Custom Field By Id' is essentially a tautology of the tool name and title. It states a verb and resource but adds no specificity about what fields can be updated or how it differs from sibling tools like custom_fields_create_custom_field or custom_fields_get_custom_field_by_id.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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