Update an existing custom field group in Kommo CRM by renaming it or adjusting its display order for leads, contacts, companies, or catalogs.
Atualiza um grupo de campos (aba/seção) existente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do grupo de campos a ser atualizado | |
| name | No | Novo nome do grupo | |
| sort | No | Nova ordem de exibição | |
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) | |
| entity_type | No | leads |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the tool updates an existing group; it does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, impacts on contained fields, or failure behavior.
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 filler. The parenthetical clarifies what a 'grupo de campos' is, and the word 'existente' adds meaningful scope without extra length.
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, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too sparse to fully support tool selection and invocation. Most context must be inferred from the schema and sibling tool names.
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 80%, and the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no extra insight into parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific action ('Atualiza') and resource ('um grupo de campos (aba/seção) existente'), and the 'existing' qualifier distinguishes it from creation and deletion tools. It also clarifies that the group is a tab/section, which separates it from custom field tools.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like update_custom_field or create_custom_field_group, and no conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.