update_merge_field

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects and requirements, but it merely states the operation without addressing permissions, reversibility, or consequences of updating a merge field. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise but does not sacrifice clarity for the basic purpose, making it appropriately sized.

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?

The description is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and explicit parameter significance, leaving significant gaps despite the schema's high coverage.

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?

The input schema fully documents all five parameters with descriptions, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description's mention of 'properties' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 (merge field's properties), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_merge_field or delete_merge_field. However, it uses the generic term 'properties' without specifying which aspects are mutable, so it is clear but not highly specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_merge_field or get_merge_field. The intent is only implied by the verb 'update', offering no explicit context or exclusions.

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