update_custom_field

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists parameters and their meanings but does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on existing data. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 structured as a single sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, though some redundancy occurs with the repeated 'Optional' prefix.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the tool's behavior more thoroughly, including what happens on success, whether changes are reversible, and any dependencies. The current text only states the action and parameter meanings, leaving the operation's context incomplete.

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 provides brief one-line meanings for all 8 parameters, such as 'name: Optional system name' and 'validation: Optional validation schema.' This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though the explanations are shallow and do not give detailed constraints or valid values.

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's function: 'Update an existing custom field / global field registration.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_custom_field and delete_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 the tool is for existing fields, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tool names are not referenced in the description.

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