ACF Felder aktualisieren

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'updates fields' without explaining whether fields are merged or replaced, whether new fields can be created, permission requirements, or side effects. This is sparse for a mutating 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant information. It earns its place and follows the principle of front-loading the core purpose.

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 mutation tool with a nested fields object and no output schema, the one-line description lacks crucial context about return values, effect on existing fields, and plugin requirements. The schema covers parameter names but not the tool's full operational context.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, and the nested 'fields' object remains vaguely defined, but the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 Custom Fields for posts/pages using a specific verb ('Aktualisiert') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling getter tools like acf_get_post_fields and other update tools like acf_update_options.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description ('updates ACF fields'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acf_update_options or acf_update_user_fields. No exclusions or alternative mentions are present.

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