rm_update_custom_field

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

The description states that the tool updates a definition, which is a mutating operation, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction and undermines the agent's ability to reason about side effects. The description also says nothing about partial vs. full updates, reversibility, or permission requirements, so the contradiction is not mitigated by other behavioral disclaimers.

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, grammatically clear sentence with no redundant wording, so it is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of merely restating the tool's name with slightly different words. It earns a middle score because it is not bloated, but it also provides almost no substantive information.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations provide some safety signals, the tool has one required parameter and three total parameters, none of which are described in the schema or description. The description omits critical usage context such as whether the update is patch-like, what constraints apply to options, or what identifiers are accepted. This is insufficient for a mutating tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the three parameters. It does not explain that custom_field_id identifies which field to update, nor what name and options represent. An agent cannot determine how to construct an invocation from the description alone.

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 identifies the operation ('Update') and the resource ('a custom field definition'), which matches and clarifies the tool name. It is distinguishable from sibling custom-field tools like rm_create_custom_field and rm_delete_custom_field at a surface level, though it does not explicitly call out any alternatives or scope. Overall the purpose is clear, but it lacks the extra detail that would make it a 5.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool instead of rm_create_custom_field, rm_get_custom_field, or rm_delete_custom_field. It also does not mention prerequisites such as the custom field needing to already exist or what scenarios warrant an update versus a create or delete. An agent is left to infer the usage entirely from the tool name.

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