pylon_update_custom_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'update an existing custom field' but does not explain whether it performs a partial update, whether all fields are required, authorization needs, side effects, or what is returned. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and free of filler, entirely appropriate for a simple CRUD operation.

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 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about update behavior and return values. It does not clarify how to use fields like default_value vs default_values, or whether select_options must be provided in full. The description is not complete for successful invocation beyond the basic purpose.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, which provides minimal descriptions like 'Slug identifier' and 'Label'.

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 'Update an existing custom field in Pylon' clearly identifies the action (update), the resource (custom field), and the scope (existing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pylon_create_custom_field, pylon_get_custom_field, and pylon_list_custom_fields.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pylon_create_custom_field or pylon_get_custom_field. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria for selecting this tool.

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