modify_field_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the tool modifies properties, implying mutation, but it does not describe side effects, required document state, error behavior, or whether changes are reversible. This is a minimal transparency level for a mutation tool.

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 purpose sentence before the argument list. The Args section is clearly structured and scannable. It is efficient, though some entries add little beyond the schema.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no enum constraints, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine which field properties are modifiable, what domain of values is expected, or what prerequisites must hold. The output schema may cover return values, but the missing property semantics remain a significant gap.

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%, so the description must compensate; it labels each parameter but mostly restates the parameter names. It adds one useful hint that doc_id comes from open_document, but it does not explain what valid 'property' names are, what value formats are accepted, or how property and value interact.

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 clear action and resource: 'Modify properties of a named field.' It is not a tautology and gives a general sense of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like set_field_ctrl_properties, which also modifies field-related properties, so it lacks explicit sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_field, put_field_text, or set_field_ctrl_properties. The only contextual hint is 'doc_id: Document ID from open_document,' which addresses parameter provenance but not usage selection. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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