pipedrive_update_product_field_options

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Atomic: the whole request fails if any option ID does not exist.' This discloses a key idempotency-related behavior that annotations (idempotentHint=true) alone do not fully capture. It also implies the operation is not destructive (updates labels only). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, with the purpose stated first, followed by a key constraint. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter clarification (field_code), and atomicity constraint. It could mention error responses beyond ID existence, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that field_code is a '40-char hash' and not the human field name. It also reiterates the atomicity condition for the options parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, this extra context is valuable.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Bulk-update option labels of a product enum/set field.' The verb 'update' and resource 'product enum/set field' are specific. It distinguishes from similar sibling tools by mentioning 'product', making clear it's for product custom fields, not deal or organization fields.

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 context: it is for updating option labels of a product field. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context of product fields is clear from the tool name and description, and the sibling tools cover other entities.

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