update_field_config

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description warns that choices not passed are deleted, which is crucial destructive behavior. It also notes that text fields must omit typeOptions to avoid errors, and that old rollup keys are auto-translated. These details add significant behavioral context not covered by 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 well-structured with clear sections, examples, and warnings. It uses headings ('COMMON typeOptions by fieldType', 'SELECT CHOICES', 'ADDING TO AN EXISTING SELECT FIELD') to organize information. Despite its length, every sentence provides essential guidance, making it efficient and appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully covers input parameters and their variations. It addresses multiple field types, edge cases (e.g., preserving existing choices), and error conditions (e.g., 422 for text fields). This ensures an agent can correctly invoke the tool without missing critical details.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds immense value by providing concrete examples and rules for typeOptions per fieldType, explaining the choices format with colors and default IDs, and detailing the merge vs. replace logic. This goes far beyond the schema's brief descriptions, making parameter usage clear and reducing guesswork.

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 any field configuration, computed or non-computed, and lists numerous field types. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_field (creates new fields) and delete_field (removes fields). The verb 'update' paired with 'field configuration' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides extensive usage guidance for different field types, including examples of typeOptions and how to handle choice fields (adding vs. replacing). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like update_formula_field, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit but comprehensive.

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