Update global custom field option

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update' and the HTTP method, implying a mutation. It fails to mention side effects, required permissions, or whether changes propagate to existing tasks. This is critically insufficient for safe invocation.

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 plus HTTP path and tags). It is not verbose, but lacks substantive guidance. It earns a middle score for being concise yet under-informative.

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, no output schema) and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a global custom field option is, how to obtain IDs, or what the response looks like. The agent would lack critical context for correct usage.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema itself includes a nested body with name and color, but the description does not explain what these parameters do or how to obtain path IDs. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 HTTP method and resource path, and indicates the action is 'Update global custom field option.' This is specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'weeek_update_a_custom_field_option' which might update non-global options. The name already suggests global scope, but description could clarify the distinction.

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 (e.g., weeek_update_a_custom_field_option, weeek_create_global_custom_field_option). The description does not indicate prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to guess.

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