Update a custom field

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic update action. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to mention idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or any constraints. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 (single sentence), which is concise but at the expense of essential details. It provides the HTTP method and path but lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for behavior, parameters, examples). The brevity is not effective because it omits key information.

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 annotations, no output schema, and the presence of multiple sibling custom field update tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what can be updated, the response format, error scenarios, or any prerequisites. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 parameter descriptions exist. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what 'name', 'config', 'body', or 'path' mean or how to construct them. The agent has to infer from the schema alone, which is complex due to nested objects and conditionals. This is a critical failure.

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 resource (custom field), and includes the HTTP method and path. It is specific enough to convey the core action, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like weeek_update_a_custom_field and weeek_update_a_custom_field_3, which have identical description text. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for updating custom fields, the description offers no context on prerequisites, when not to use it, or what distinguishes it from similar tools. This is a significant gap.

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