update_reference_list_column

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain behavioral traits. It only labels the operation as a 'mutation' and provides an example input, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or the consequences of modifying linkedFields. This is insufficient 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 very short, but that brevity comes from being a raw GraphQL introspection stub, not from well-crafted concise language. It lacks a plain-language summary and dumps a JSON example without context, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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?

This is a mutation with a nested input object and no output schema, so the description should cover broader context like return behavior, side effects, or usage scenarios. It only provides a partial example and no explanation of the operation's effect, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema gives a generic 'GraphQL: UpdateReferenceListColumnInput!' for the input parameter and a clear description for customer_slug. The description adds an example input object showing fields (id, name, description, linkedFields with add/remove/replace), which provides structural insight beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the meaning or constraints of these fields.

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 opens with 'Reference Lists · mutation updateReferenceListColumn', which simply restates the tool name with a domain prefix. It does not explicitly say what the mutation does (e.g., 'Updates a column in a reference list'), and the example variables are the only hint of behavior. This is barely above a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings like create_reference_list_column, delete_reference_list_column, or update_reference_list_row. The description provides no context about the operation's role in managing reference lists.

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