update_a_custom_deal_field_meta

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Idempotent' and 'Modifies an existing record in place', which aligns with annotations but adds no new behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects, or field constraints). With annotations present, the description does not significantly 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 relatively short, front-loads key information (emoji, path, verb), and avoids fluff. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Update a custom field' could be combined with the following sentence for slightly better conciseness.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the response contains or confirm success. It also fails to clarify whether the update is partial or full (PUT with optional body suggests partial, but this is not stated). The nested object in body is not referenced, leaving ambiguity about which fields are updatable.

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 the schema fully documents parameters (id, body with nested properties). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, thus meeting the baseline without improvement.

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 'Update a custom field' and includes the resource path and HTTP method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_a_custom_field' or 'update_a_custom_deal_field_value' by naming 'Deal Custom Field Meta'. However, it could be more precise about the specific resource (deal custom field meta) to avoid confusion with similar tools.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'update_a_custom_deal_field_value' for values or 'update_a_custom_field' for contact fields. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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