ghl_update_custom_field

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. Saying 'Update' implies mutation, but it does not explain whether missing fields are left unchanged, whether options are replaced entirely, or what the response contains. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a write operation.

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 single sentence of five words. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than effectively structured. There is no front-loaded detail beyond the basic action, so it earns a middle score.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what a custom field is, what update semantics apply (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), or what the caller should expect in return. Sibling tools like ghl_get_custom_fields and ghl_create_custom_field hint at context, but the description itself leaves major gaps.

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 20%, with only fieldId documented. The description does not compensate by explaining the meaning of name, options, position, or placeholder, nor how they interact. The tool's five parameters are left almost entirely unexplained, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 a specific action ('Update') and resource ('an existing custom field'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_create_custom_field and ghl_delete_custom_field. However, it lacks detail about what fields can be updated or how it differs from ghl_update_custom_value, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_custom_field is for new fields, delete_custom_field for removal, or update_custom_value for values. There is no exclusion or context about prerequisites such as fieldId.

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