Custom Objects Update

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful extra context by disclosing the required OAuth scope and that the API version is unstable, though it does not explain side effects on the definition.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. It slightly duplicates that the API is unstable in both the first sentence and the final API version line.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, for updating a custom object definition, the description only says fields follow the API reference and does not explain the definition payload shape or update semantics beyond the schema's generic anyOf.

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 coverage is 100%, so namespace, slug, and definition are already described structurally. The HTTP path in the description reinforces where namespace and slug are used, but it adds little meaning about the accepted shape or fields inside the definition payload.

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('custom object definition'), which helps distinguish it from tiendanube_custom_object_entries_update. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear.

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 provides operational context such as required scope and HTTP method, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create/get/delete or custom object entry tools. The intended mutation is implied by 'Update' but not otherwise clarified.

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