wafeq_custom_fields_update

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

Annotations carry the main safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and the description is consistent with them. The description adds the PUT method as minor behavioral context, but does not explain PUT full-replacement semantics or what happens to unspecified fields. No annotation contradiction.

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 first line is compact and front-loaded with the write indicator, resource, and endpoint. However, the following two sentences ('Update custom field' and 'Endpoint for updating an existing custom field') are largely redundant restatements of the title, wasting space that could have carried usage guidance.

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?

Despite a rich schema and informative annotations, the description omits key context for a tool with a complex nested config: what PUT full-update semantics mean compared to partial_update, whether field_type or config can be changed on an in-use field, and what the response looks like (no output schema). An agent could invoke the wrong sibling without additional clues.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema thoroughly documents id, body, and idempotency_key, including the oneOf config variants, the discriminator, and the idempotency header behavior. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update custom field', 'Endpoint for updating an existing custom field') and the first line adds the HTTP method and path (PUT /custom-fields/{id}/). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the closely related wafeq_custom_fields_partial_update sibling.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions wafeq_custom_fields_partial_update, wafeq_custom_fields_create, or any condition for choosing between full PUT update and partial PATCH update. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'update'.

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