update_custom_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'updates an existing custom field,' which confirms mutation but does not explain whether updates are partial or full, what side effects occur, whether authorization is required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with no filler or redundant detail. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it sacrifices explanatory content for brevity. Still, conciseness itself is done well.

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?

With five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to give the agent a complete picture. It does not mention which fields can be changed, that id and client_slug are required, or what happens after a successful update. The schema fills in some gaps, but the overall definition remains incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 60%, so id, name, and client_slug have descriptions, but group_id is undocumented and entity_type only has an enum/default without explanation; the description does not compensate for that gap or clarify which fields are actually updatable.

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 states a clear action ('Atualiza') and a specific resource ('um campo customizado existente'), making it obvious this tool updates an existing custom field rather than creating, deleting, or fetching one. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, but the verb and 'existente' already separate it from create_custom_field, get_custom_field, and delete_custom_field.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_custom_field, get_custom_field_by_id, or delete_custom_field. It also does not mention prerequisites such as the custom field needing to already exist or the need to provide a client_slug. The word 'existente' weakly implies it is for existing fields, but no explicit use-case or alternative routing is provided.

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