update_content_field

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies mutation ('set') but gives no details on whether other fields are preserved, if the operation is idempotent, what errors occur, or what the return value looks like. There is no mention of authentication or side effects.

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?

While the description is very short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It essentially restates the tool name with minimal extra meaning. It lacks any structure or useful detail, so it does not 'earn its place' by adding value beyond the tool name.

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?

The description is grossly insufficient for a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations or output schema. It fails to explain parameter semantics, usage context, behavioral implications, or expected return. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced. An agent would be left guessing.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters id, field, or value. It does not clarify that id is the content item identifier, field is the field name, or that value is the new value. The agent cannot infer parameter usage from the description.

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 action: 'Set one field on one content item.' It defines the scope (one field, one item) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_content (which creates new items) and publish_content (which publishes). This is a specific verb-resource pairing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for updating an existing field, nor does it reference sibling tools like search_content or get_content for locating items beforehand, or create_content for new items. The description offers no exclusions or context.

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