update_a_custom_field

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

The description adds 'Idempotent' which is already declared in annotations (idempotentHint: true). It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, 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?

The description is concise (three short sentences) and front-loaded with key info (emoji, HTTP method). The structure is clear, though the first line is somewhat dense with mixed symbols and text.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description lacks information about the response, error states, or practical usage context. Annotations provide safety info, but the description does not complete the picture for an AI agent.

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%, and each parameter already has a description in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 specifies the resource 'Account Custom Field Meta', which distinguishes it from other custom field update tools for deals or contacts. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (account custom field meta) to better differentiate among siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_a_custom_deal_field_meta or update_a_custom_field_value. No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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