Edit Custom Field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an update operation and adds a key constraint ('cannot change the field type after creation'), but it does not describe the response, error cases, or impact on existing data. This is adequate but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, the second provides a prerequisite and a key constraint. Every sentence is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.

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 7-parameter update tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core function, a prerequisite, and a critical limitation. It does not explicitly contrast with create/delete tools, but the sibling list makes the intent clear.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain the required custom_field_id via get_custom_fields, which gives practical meaning to that parameter beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'Update an existing custom field definition', using a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('custom field definition'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_custom_field and delete_custom_field.

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?

Provides clear usage context by instructing to 'Use get_custom_fields to find field IDs first' and notes the restriction on changing field type. While it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, the context is enough for an agent to understand the prerequisite and limitation.

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