update_field_config

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

Annotations already indicate it's idempotent, not read-only, not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., side effects, authentication needs), so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance transparency.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. No wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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 no output schema and the complexity (5 params, nested objects), the description is too sparse. It fails to mention return value, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'rollup settings' hints at typeOptions), but the schema already explains parameters adequately.

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 it updates computed fields (formula, rollup, etc.), with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'update_formula_field', which might cause confusion.

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 says 'Use this to change formula text, rollup settings, etc.', indicating when to use, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like 'update_formula_field'.

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