spatial_update_field

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

The description adds 'Read-only fields of the form cannot be changed' and '[changes spatial-service]', which provides behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It signals that the tool mutates state and has restrictions. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the note about read-only fields is a valuable guardrail.

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?

A single sentence that immediately states the action ('Edit a field'), followed by a key restriction and a side-effect tag. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words. The structure is efficient and appropriate for a tool with a clear scope.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and a complex dryRun/confirm pattern, the description is very brief and omits the essential confirmation requirement. An agent must know that dryRun defaults to true and confirm must be set false to actually apply changes. The description doesn't mention this critical operational detail, nor does it explain return behavior or prerequisites. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 73%, with many parameters having their own descriptions. The description lists 'name, description, flags' but doesn't map these to specific parameters or add syntax details. It doesn't compensate for the uncovered parameters, but the schema already carries most of the burden. The description adds marginal value beyond what the schema provides.

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 action: 'Edit a field' with the resources (name, description, flags). It distinguishes from siblings like spatial_create_field and spatial_get_field by indicating editing rather than creation or retrieval. The constraint about read-only fields 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 implies usage for editing existing fields, and the sibling set includes create_field and get_field, making the context clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions beyond read-only restrictions. The implication is strong enough to guide an agent.

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