Update Custom Field

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

Annotations already mark idempotentHint:true, destructiveHint:false, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: it explains the destructive side effect of dropping options in the select list (deletes them and referencing document values) and how renaming (patch without extra_data) preserves options. This goes beyond annotations and is essential for agent decision-making.

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 dense with technical detail but efficiently organized with bullet points for the two data types. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary examples. Slightly long but each sentence earns its place given the complexity.

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?

With a nested object schema and 0% schema coverage, this description is thorough. It covers the two main extra_data variations, gives examples, and points to create_custom_field for the full table. It doesn't describe return values, but an output schema exists. Minor gap: doesn't mention error conditions or idempotency implications, but the idempotent hint covers that.

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 0%, so the description must shoulder the load. It thoroughly explains the semantics of extra_data for two data types, including how to preserve, create, and delete options. It also clarifies that field_id is an identifier and patch is a partial update object. This far exceeds the bare 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?

States a clear action ('Patch selected fields') on a specific resource ('custom field definition'), with explicit mention of partial updates. It also references the sibling create_custom_field for full shape, aiding differentiation from creation and other update tools.

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 detailed guidance on when to use the tool and how to handle specific data_type cases, especially the select behavior with wholesale replacement and id preservation. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., when to use create/delete) but gives clear conditional context for different use cases.

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