fields_update_project_field

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses type immutability and API version, but does not mention authentication, side effects of changing options, or partial vs full update behavior. Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. Front-loaded with action and resource. Every sentence adds information.

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?

Covers core purpose and constraints. No output schema, but description is sufficient for basic usage. Lacks details on permissions or return format, but acceptable given simplicity.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by emphasizing that `field_code` is required, options are for enum/set types, and type cannot be changed. Provides useful constraints beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing project field'), distinguishes from create/delete and other field update tools via entity type. The description specifies what can be updated (name/options) and what cannot (field type).

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?

Explicitly requires `field_code` and allows any of name/options, with the constraint that field type cannot be changed. Does not explicitly list alternatives (e.g., create or other field updates), but sibling tools make the context clear.

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