PUT /fields/{id}

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating 'Update'—it does not explain what gets destroyed, the impact on existing field data, or the confirm requirement described in the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the operation, but the second sentence ('Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation update-fields.') is provenance noise that does not help an agent invoke the tool.

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?

This is a destructive write tool with a required confirm parameter and a nested body object, but the description does not address those complexities. Annotations cover the safety hints, yet the description remains too thin for correct invocation and impact awareness.

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 67%, with id and confirm described in the schema, but the nested body's name and element properties have no descriptions. The description adds no parameter meaning, so it does not compensate for the gap in explaining what can be updated in a custom field.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update a custom field.' However, it adds no scope or differentiation from the many sibling field-related tools (e.g., snipeit_gen_fieldsid, snipeit_gen_fieldsetsid), so an agent cannot tell when this is the right field mutation tool without opening schemas.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The only contextual signal is the HTTP method in the title, which is not usage guidance.

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