smartsuite_update_formula_field

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in the annotations, the description carries real weight: it discloses auth/mode gating, partial-update behavior (only supplied fields change, others preserved), pre-validation plus advisory linting of semantic traps, and a dry-run-vs-apply confirm gate with a new-vs-previous preview. These are exactly the behavioral traits beyond the annotation that an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered with prerequisites, update semantics, validation behavior, and the confirm gate. Six sentences and each one conveys actionable information with no filler.

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 output schema and only a single readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: authorization gates, partial-update safety, validation/linting, and the dry-run/confirm contract. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the partial-update rule (only supplied params change), the meaning of the dry-run preview output, and the advisory-only nature of linting. It restates the confirm semantics that the schema already documents, so it is not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb (update) plus resource (formula field) and enumerates the mutable aspects (expression, label, return type). This distinguishes it from create_formula_field, update_field, and validate_formula in the sibling list without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (readwrite/admin mode AND SMARTSUITE_ENABLE_SCHEMA_WRITE=true) and the confirmation workflow (dry-run by default, confirm:true to apply), which tells the agent exactly when the call actually mutates. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as validate_formula or create_formula_field, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than exhaustive.

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