Update Custom Field

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and idempotent PUT (idempotentHint: true). The description adds useful behavioral nuances beyond annotations, specifically the mandatory inclusion of required fields even for unchanged values and the deactivation rule via deactivated_datetime, which clarifies PUT semantics.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the HTTP method and resource. Every sentence provides a specific, actionable detail with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides some critical guidance but omits an explicit statement about full-replace semantics (e.g., what happens to omitted optional fields) or return values. The required-field warning hints at PUT semantics, but it could be more explicit for a complex update tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by emphasizing that the three required fields must always be included even if unchanged, and by explaining the deactivation behavior of deactivated_datetime, which goes slightly beyond the schema's per-property descriptions.

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 a single custom field by ID using PUT, identifying the specific resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like bulk_update_custom_fields or create_custom_field by focusing on a single-object update.

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 provides explicit context: the three required fields must always be included even if unchanged, and deactivation is achieved by setting deactivated_datetime to a past timestamp. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the single vs. bulk usage is implied by the tool name and sibling tools.

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