Update a custom field

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only indicates a PUT request. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects on existing custom fields, or error handling. The agent gains little insight into the mutation behavior.

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, which could be considered concise, but it omits critical information needed for correct tool usage. It is structured as a single sentence but does not add value beyond the tool name and endpoint.

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 tool's complexity (nested parameters, conditional fields, multiple sibling tools) and lack of output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent lacks essential details to invoke the tool correctly and understand its effects.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of parameters. It merely notes 'Body: application/json'. The complex nested schema is left entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid requests.

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 the tool updates a custom field and provides the HTTP method and path. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like weeek_update_a_custom_field or weeek_update_a_custom_field_2, leaving ambiguity about which update tool to use.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for updating custom fields.

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