cigchat_flow_update_user_field

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

The description discloses that a 'Manage Flow' scope is required on the token, which is a useful permission detail. However, without annotations, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like whether the user field must exist, side effects, or what the response contains. The auth requirement is the main contribution.

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 sentence that succinctly states the purpose, includes the endpoint, and notes the required token scope. It is front-loaded with the action and has no unnecessary words.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple update operation but lacks clarity on prerequisites (e.g., must the field exist?), required property combinations (must at least one of name/display_type be provided?), and the return value or success indication. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps affect completeness.

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 explains that 'Update user field name or display_type' directly maps to the 'name' and 'display_type' parameters, adding meaning to the 'name' parameter which lacks a schema description. It also reinforces what var_ns refers to through the context, though the schema already describes it well.

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 the action 'Update user field name or display_type' with a specific resource (user field) and the specific attributes that can be changed. It also includes the endpoint, which adds clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling create/delete 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as create/delete user field. The verb 'update' implies it's for modifying existing fields, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative references are provided.

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