Edit Tracker local field

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), lowering the bar. The description still adds real value by disclosing PATCH semantics ("only the fields set in body are changed") and that it returns the updated field definition, which is not conveyed by annotations alone.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation and its partial-update semantics, followed by the sourcing hint and return value. No sentence is redundant.

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?

For a 3-parameter, deeply nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key unknowns: partial update behavior, where field_key comes from, and that the updated definition is returned. It could note permission requirements or whether edits are reversible, but it is substantially complete.

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% and the nested body fields (name, order, hidden, visible, category, readonly, description, options_provider) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the origin of field_key, which the schema itself already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Edit a queue-local field") and the scope qualifier "queue-local" implicitly distinguishes it from the global tracker_fields_update sibling. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation bar.

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?

Provides the practical prerequisite for invocation ("Get field_key from localfields_list") and the partial-update rule for body, which is useful context. However, there are no when-not-this-tool conditions and no named alternative (e.g. localfields_create vs. fields_update) for the agent to weigh.

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