PATCH /extraField/:id (Extra Field)

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive write operation. Description adds context: only sent fields are updated, missing fields keep current value, and a constraint on showCustomerService. No contradictions with 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?

Description is concise with a clear front-loaded purpose and subsequent field details. It is efficient but could be more structured with bullet points or explicit sections.

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?

Covers key behavioral aspects and constraints. Lacks information on response format (e.g., returns updated object or status) and error conditions. For a PATCH tool with no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters but body schema is generic. Description fully documents body fields (name, type, showCustomerService) with constraints and allowed values, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Atualização parcial de um Campo Extra' (partial update of an Extra Field), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_extra_field, delete_extra_field, and get_extra_field.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_extra_field or delete_extra_field. It implies usage for modifying existing fields but lacks direct guidance or exclusion criteria.

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