locations_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, so the agent knows this is a write operation that is non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds nothing beyond these—no mention of required fields, side effects, or return behavior. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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 concise—a three-word fragment—but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. For a tool with 10 parameters and a nontrivial purpose, the description should convey more useful context. It is not structured to front-load key information because there is almost no information.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It provides no context on when to use it, what fields are required, or what the outcome is. An agent has insufficient information to call this tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 only 30%, with most parameters undocumented. The description provides no parameter details or hints about what values are expected, failing to compensate for the low coverage. An agent would have to rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions for many fields.

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' states a clear action and resource, distinguishing it from create/delete/get siblings. However, it lacks any detail about the scope (locations) or which attributes can be updated, and it doesn't differentiate itself from other 'update' tools in the same domain (e.g., locations_update_tag). The verb+resource is explicit but minimal.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like locations_create_custom_field or locations_delete_custom_field. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when an update is appropriate. This is completely absent.

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