alterios_upsert_field

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions planning vs execution and write gates, but lacks details on what gets modified, whether changes are reversible, or what happens when dry_run is false. The tool's mutation effects are not adequately described.

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?

Two succinct sentences that front-load the purpose and add a critical usage note. Every word earns its place 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is severely incomplete for a complex mutation tool with 17 parameters and no annotations. It fails to explain the planning vs execution semantics, the role of dry_run, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 17 parameters. It does not explain key parameters like field_type, content_type_id, dry_run, or how field_id relates to update vs create.

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 the verb 'plan or create/update' and the resource 'Alterios content type field', distinguishing it from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_view_field. The purpose is 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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The mention of 'write gates' hints at authorization but does not help an agent choose among similar upsert tools for different resource types.

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