Update Form Fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: preview environment only, permission requirement, field code update restrictions, selection options deletion behavior, lookup field instability, and the need for deployment. This goes well beyond the input schema, which only defines parameter structure.

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 moderately long but every sentence provides useful information. It is well-structured with specific constraints and prerequisites. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 the tool (many field types, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential pre-conditions and side effects. It mentions the preview environment, permission, deployment, and field-specific caveats. It could add a note about the revision parameter (error on mismatch), but the schema already covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description adds important parameter-level context: for selection fields, unspecified options will be deleted and option keys must match current names. This is not present in the schema and helps the agent understand the implications of setting the 'properties' parameter. The baseline of 3 is exceeded.

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 'Update form field settings in a kintone app (preview environment only)', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kintone-add-form-fields (adding new fields) and kintone-delete-form-fields by focusing on updating existing fields. The mention of preview environment further clarifies scope.

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 clear context: requires App Management permissions, recommends using kintone-get-form-fields first, and notes that changes require deploy. It also warns about selection field option deletion and lookup field issues. However, it could explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for adding fields, use the add tool), though this is implied by the sibling tool names.

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