update_custom_field

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, the description does not explain the implications of updating a custom field (e.g., irreversible changes, cascading effects).

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 sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise but could be more informative without adding length.

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 absence of an output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not state return values, error conditions, or idempotency. It is minimally functional but lacks completeness for an agent to use confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only mentions 'nombre' (name) but does not explain 'field_id' or how to obtain it, nor does it clarify the constraints or format of the parameters.

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 tool updates the name of an existing custom field. It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('custom field name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_custom_field and delete_custom_field.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where updating a custom field is appropriate, nor does it exclude cases where other tools (e.g., update_contact) should be used.

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