pipedrive_update_person_field_options

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

The description adds atomicity behavior ('the whole request fails if any option ID does not exist'), which is not in annotations. However, it does not mention success outcomes, error handling, or other side effects. Annotations already indicate idempotent and not read-only.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and atomicity. No redundant words, well-structured.

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 bulk-update tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose and atomicity. It lacks mention of return value or limits, but given the simplicity and existing annotations, it is fairly 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 tool description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The schema already explains field_code and options clearly.

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 'Bulk-update option labels of a person enum/set field', specifying the action (bulk-update) and resource (option labels of a person enum/set field). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pipedrive_update_person_field and pipedrive_update_person.

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 option labels on person fields but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though the naming convention helps differentiate.

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