Update a custom field option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the HTTP method (PUT) and content type, implying a modification, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, idempotency, error conditions, or the fact that name and color are the only updatable fields.

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 and front-loaded with the HTTP path, which is efficient. However, it lacks sufficient substance to be genuinely helpful, conveying only the bare minimum. It is not overly verbose but also not earning its place with valuable content.

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 input schema (nested objects, required fields, enums) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of the path IDs, the allowed values for color (though present in schema, the description should summarize), or the behavior of updating. The tool is one of many similar update tools, and more context would help.

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%, meaning the description adds no meaning to parameters beyond the schema. The description only mentions 'Body: application/json' but does not describe the required 'name' and 'color' fields in the body or the path parameters. With a complex nested schema, the description should have provided a high-level overview of the parameters.

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?

Clear verb 'Update' and resource 'custom field option' are stated. The HTTP path and method are provided, making the operation unambiguous. However, no differentiation from sibling tools like 'weeek_update_a_custom_field_option' or 'weeek_update_a_custom_field_option_3' is given.

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. There are multiple update tools for custom field options (e.g., without '_2', with '_3'), but the description does not explain the difference or provide selection criteria.

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