update_custom_field

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that updating extra_data for 'select' type replaces the list wholesale, and dropping options deletes document values referencing them. This reveals potential side effects not indicated by destructiveHint=false.

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 well-structured with three paragraphs, but some redundancy could be trimmed. However, the level of detail for the complex parameter is justified and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral details and parameter semantics. It references the sibling tool for additional shape information, making it complete for a patch operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the complex 'extra_data' parameter shapes for 'monetary' and 'select' types, including examples and warnings. The 'name' and 'field_id' are self-explanatory but still mentioned.

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 tool name 'update_custom_field' and description 'Patch selected fields on a custom field definition' clearly state the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create, delete, get, and list custom fields by focusing on patching.

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 provides context on when to use this tool by explaining the extra_data parameter's behavior and referencing 'create_custom_field' for the full shape table. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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