updateCustomField

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a custom field' merely restates the tool name and implies mutation without detailing side effects, partial vs. full updates, permissions, or any other behavioral traits. It adds no value beyond the name itself.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is also under-specified—it restates the tool's name without adding explanatory value, so it does not fully 'earn its place' as a helpful description.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the update behavior, return value, required parameters' significance, or any caveats. The schema lists properties, but the description does not offer the contextual completeness needed for confident invocation.

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 100%, with each parameter having a basic description (id, name, type, options). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema alone is adequate but not enriched.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('custom field'), which distinguishes it from create/get/list siblings. However, it lacks specificity about which attributes can be updated, making it slightly less informative than ideal but still 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like createCustomField or getCustomField. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conflicting tools, leaving the agent without directional support.

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