Update Customer Field Value

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: value type must match the field's data_type, passing null clears the value, and clarifies the path 'id' is the custom field definition ID. It doesn't mention auth or side effects, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, no fluff. Every sentence contributes essential information about what the tool does and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: purpose, ID semantics, value type constraints, and null behavior. It doesn't specify response behavior, but for a simple update tool and given the annotations, this is sufficient. Slight gap is the lack of explicit alternative tool guidance.

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 already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between the path 'id' and the body 'definition_id', and gives concrete type mapping (string for text, number for number, boolean for boolean) plus null semantics, going beyond the schema.

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 specific action (update) and resource (value of a single custom field for a given customer), and the endpoint is given. It distinguishes from siblings like gorgias_update_customer_fields (plural) by emphasizing 'single' 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?

The description implies usage for updating a single custom field value, and contrasts with bulk or plural updates via the word 'single'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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