ACF Options Page aktualisieren

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavior such as whether existing values are overwritten, if partial field updates are supported, or what the tool returns. The only extra detail is that it's an ACF Pro feature, which is minimal.

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, short sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words, earning its place by succinctly naming the action and resource.

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 is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It omits usage context, behavior notes, and how it relates to sibling ACF update tools, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. The schema already explains 'fields' as a key-value object and 'optionsPage' with a default. The description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 ACF Options Page fields (ACF Pro feature). It uses a specific verb ('Aktualisiert') and resource ('ACF Options Page Felder'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like acf_update_post_fields and acf_update_user_fields by targeting options pages.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling update tools (e.g., acf_update_post_fields, acf_update_user_fields), the description would benefit from explicitly stating it is for options pages only and not for other ACF field locations.

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