swapcard_update_custom_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not reveal whether the update is partial/patch, what happens to omitted fields, whether fieldDefinitionId must exist, or any side effects on existing data.

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, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it may err on the side of oversimplicity for a tool with several parameters.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin to give an agent sufficient context. It lacks information about required fields, update semantics, error behavior, and relationship to sibling custom-field tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The four parameters (isVisible, isEditable, maxCharacters, fieldDefinitionId) are entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot infer which fields are updatable or what values are valid.

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 verb ('Update') and the resource ('custom field definition'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or clarify whether this applies to field metadata rather than field values.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus swapcard_create_custom_field, swapcard_get_custom_fields, or swapcard_delete_custom_fields, nor does it mention prerequisites or lifecycle context.

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