Update a custom field

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update a custom field' and includes the HTTP method. It does not disclose mutation behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. The input schema suggests possible configuration changes, but the description lacks behavioral context.

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 very short (one sentence) but includes technical details like HTTP method and path that may be redundant. It could be more concise by focusing on functional aspects. The structure is acceptable but not optimized for quick comprehension.

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 (nested objects in schema, multiple possible configurations, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning no property descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters. It only mentions 'Body: application/json' but does not explain the structure or purpose of 'body' or 'path'. This is insufficient for an agent to know what to provide.

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 states 'Update a custom field' which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like weeek_update_a_custom_field_2 or _3, which likely update different scopes (e.g., board-level or global). The HTTP path hints at project-level custom fields, but this is not explicit.

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. With many sibling custom field update tools, explicit context for when to choose this specific tool is missing.

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