cases_update_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'update,' which is a mutation, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, effects on existing data, return values, or any other behavioral traits. This is a minimal disclosure, similar to the update_drive example.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and does not earn its place beyond restating the tool's name. It provides no additional context, making it closer to 'Process' in the calibration example.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and an output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what is updated, how the parameters interact, or what the output indicates, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. The schema itself is the only source of information about domain_id, field_id, name, and description, but the description adds no semantic meaning to these fields.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('a case field'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like cases_update_case (case-level update) and cases_create_field (creation). However, it does not specify the exact scope or what updating a field involves, so it falls short of full specificity.

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 cases_update_case or cases_create_field. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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