Update a custom field option

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

The description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. No annotations are provided, so the description fails to convey side effects, idempotency, or requirements such as permissions. 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 but includes the HTTP method and path, which are redundant given the tool name. It could be more concise by omitting these details, but overall it is not excessively verbose.

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?

The description is extremely incomplete. It does not differentiate from sibling update tools, explain the scope (project vs global), or provide any context about path parameters. Given the complexity of nested parameters and multiple siblings, the description fails to provide sufficient information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The schema defines required parameters (name, color) and constraints, but the description does not explain their purpose or any additional context.

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 'Update a custom field option', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish between this tool and sibling tools like weeek_update_a_custom_field_option_2 or _3, which likely update different scopes (e.g., project vs global).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete options, nor any prerequisites (e.g., existing project, custom field, and option). The description provides no context for appropriate usage.

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