fields_update_deal_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that field_type is immutable and that options must be provided as the full set, requiring existing option IDs to preserve options. This explains critical mutation behavior. However, it does not describe side effects on existing deals or return value, which would enhance transparency.

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 concise: a one-line summary, a clear note about field_type and options behavior, and a bullet list of common use cases. It is front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no words. Every sentence serves a 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main update scenarios and constraints. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., the updated field object), which an agent would need to chain calls. Despite the good annotations within the input schema, the lack of return information leaves a gap.

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 adds value by explaining the 'options' parameter in terms of preserving existing options with IDs and adding new ones without IDs. It also relates 'add_visible_flag' to a common use case (toggling visibility). This clarifies intent beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('existing custom deal field'). It distinguishes from siblings like fields_create_deal_field and fields_delete_deal_field by specifying 'existing' and focusing on updates. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit common use cases (rename, add/remove options, toggle visibility) and a key constraint (field_type cannot be changed). It gives clear guidance on how to handle options for enum/set fields. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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