update_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It states what is updated but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., data loss when changing type), required permissions, reversibility, or return value. This is a minimal transparency 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?

A single, succinct sentence front-loaded with the key action and scope. No filler or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return behavior and side effects. It only lists updatable fields, leaving gaps around expected response, error conditions, and consequences of type changes. This is inadequate for a tool with nested options.

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 description coverage is 100% for all four parameters, so the schema provides full parameter meaning. The description merely restates the same updateable attributes without adding syntax, format, or relationship details (e.g., how field_options depends on type). Baseline 3 applies.

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 action (update), the resource (existing field), and the attributes modified (name, type, type-specific options). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_field (new field) and delete_field (remove 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?

The description implies usage for modifying an existing field, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., field must exist). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only inferred.

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