update_device_custom_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'update' and lists modifiable fields but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting of dropdown options, immediate persistence) or any safety considerations.

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?

A single sentence of 16 words that is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently lists modifiable fields. No extraneous 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify expected return values or side effects. It only states what can be modified, leaving the agent unsure about response format or mutation behavior.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description summarizes modifiable parameters (name, code, visibility, dropdown) but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The required customFieldId is not highlighted.

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 tool updates an existing device custom field configuration and lists specific modifiable aspects (field name, code, visibility, dropdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_device_custom_field or delete_device_custom_field.

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?

The description implies usage (updating existing fields) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like create or delete. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are provided.

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