Update GoHighLevel Custom Field

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds that it is a write operation requiring caution, which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it does not mention idempotency or other behavioral traits.

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?

Extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the primary action and API endpoint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has 13 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update scope, required parameters beyond field_id, or the effect on existing data.

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 coverage is only 38%, but the description offers no parameter-specific explanations. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving users to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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?

Clearly states 'Update a custom field' with specific verb and resource, and includes the API endpoint for context. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and list operations.

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?

Provides a caution about not running against live data but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghl_create_custom_field or ghl_update_custom_field_v2). No 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings.

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