update_fieldRename an Airtable field or edit its description by providing the base, table, and field IDs.
Update a field's name or description
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name for the field | |
| baseId | Yes | The ID of the base | |
| fieldId | Yes | The ID of the field | |
| tableId | Yes | The ID or name of the table | |
| description | No | New description for the field |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema: it doesn't state whether renaming is destructive to references, whether permissions are required, or what happens when only one of name/description is supplied.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the operation it names.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema covers all parameters. Still missing for a mutation tool: whether at least one of name/description must be set, and any note on the destructive impact of renaming a field.
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%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description restates the two mutable fields but adds no format, constraint, or required/optional nuance beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a clear verb+resource and identifies the two mutable fields (name, description), so the operation is unambiguous. However it offers no differentiation from close siblings like update_table, update_records, or create_field, which also touch fields/tables.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_field or update_table, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.