Rename / update custom field

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly indicates the tool modifies name/description but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, reversible, or what side effects occur (e.g., dependent items). This is minimally adequate for a straightforward update.

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 sentences: first delivers core purpose, second redirects related functionality. No redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple field-update tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It defines what is changed and what is not. The schema already covers how to obtain the GID. Missing a hint about the return value (e.g., 'returns the updated field') but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 33% (only custom_field_gid described). The description adds that name and description are the updatable fields, which matches the schema properties. It does not provide constraints (e.g., max length) or formatting rules, so the agent gains little beyond knowing that those parameters exist.

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 'Change a custom field's name or description', specifying the exact verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling enum_option_* tools by noting that enum values are edited with those, eliminating any ambiguity about scope.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use enum_option_* tools for editing enum values, which is a clear when-not-to-use. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., field must exist) or when to prefer this over custom_field_create.

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