update_a_schema

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructive nature. The description adds beyond annotations by explaining the effect of the showFields query parameter, the status of deleted fields, and practical tips for field uniqueness. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loads the action and tool type with an emoji indicator, and structures information well. The included URL is useful but adds length; could be shortened. Overall, it's efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the complex nested input schema (with fields, relationships, labels) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains idempotency, the showFields parameter behavior, and handling of deleted fields. It does not need to describe return values. Edge cases like deleted fields are covered.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents all parameters. The description adds extra context by emphasizing the showFields parameter and its role in ensuring field id uniqueness. This provides practical value beyond the schema's parameter 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 'Update a schema' and 'Modifies an existing record in place'. It identifies the resource as schemas under Custom Objects and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_a_schema, delete_a_schema, and retrieve_a_schema. The HTTP method and path are also included for clarity.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to update a schema) and provides guidance on related operations (e.g., deleting a field via another endpoint). It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide usage among many siblings.

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