Custom Fields Update

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

Beyond the safety markers in annotations, the description adds crucial technical context: the specific HTTP method used (PUT), the API version (2025-03), and the required scope structure. These details are vital behavioral constraints that influence how the agent must formulate the request.

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 definition is highly condensed and efficient, placing the primary function in the opening line. The subsequent technical data follows a logical progression (Endpoint -> Scope -> Version) without unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the complexity of an API integration tool, the description is quite complete. It satisfies the need to define the operation's boundaries (API version, required permissions, URL structure) which are essential for correct invocation, even if the parameter details are in the schema.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the description provides little semantic value over the structured input. It defines the tool's existence but does not elaborate on the meaning or acceptable values of the parameters themselves.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the resource being acted upon ('custom field definition'). The inclusion of the HTTP method and path (PUT /{entity}/custom-fields/{custom_field_id}) provides even greater specificity, distinguishing it immediately from related list or create actions.

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?

While it does not compare usage against sibling tools, it explicitly defines the required scopes (e.g., read_products/write_products) necessary for execution. This provides a clear operational guideline on the tool's applicability within the system context, ensuring the agent knows the permissions needed to use it.

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