Custom Attributes: Update custom attribute in Account

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: the required auth header, the PATCH endpoint, the extra_body escape hatch, and the note that text/IDs may arrive in Persian or Arabic-Indic digits and are passed unchanged. It omits what happens to unspecified fields or what the response contains.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then endpoint, auth, body fields, and finally the locale note. Dense but each line carries information; the prose is functional rather than padded.

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?

For a 9-param, nested-object, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, endpoint, body surface, and extra_body overrides. It stops short of describing update semantics (partial vs full replacement) or the returned shape, but the essential callable information is present.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented; the description lists the body fields but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. The only marginal additions are the extra_body note and the language/digit handling remark, which do not map to specific 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a custom attribute in account') and its naming maps cleanly onto the sibling set (add/get/list/remove custom attribute). It does not explicitly differentiate from gapify_add_custom_attribute or gapify_remove_custom_attribute, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the update verb, and the endpoint line signals which fields are patchable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer add/remove or list, and no preconditions stated beyond the auth header.

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