update_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal process of exporting the full dictionary, patching the target field, and importing it back, and states that only passed properties change. It also mentions the return behavior (confirmation or error if not found), which is valuable operational context.

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 well-structured: opening purpose, behavior note, detailed arg list, and returns. It is somewhat verbose but necessary given 11 parameters. All content is relevant and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no annotations and a complex schema with 11 parameters, the description is fully complete. It covers all parameters, behavior, return values, and important caveats (preservation of unmentioned properties). No significant gaps remain.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully compensates with detailed explanations for all 11 parameters, including formats (e.g., choices formatted as "1, Label 1 | 2, Label 2") and semantics (e.g., required as boolean). This is well beyond what the schema provides.

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 properties of an existing field in the data dictionary, distinguishing it from siblings like add_field, remove_field, and move_field. The verb 'update' plus the resource 'existing field in the data dictionary' precisely conveys the action.

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 provides clear context that only passed properties are changed and all others are preserved, which is key when deciding to use this tool for partial updates. It implies the tool is for existing fields but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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