update_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the system field constraint, but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing data in the field. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, important constraint note, and illustrative example. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most critical constraint immediately following the main 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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. The system field constraint is valuable, but missing details about permissions, side effects, and response format leave the agent with incomplete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description provides an example that illustrates parameter usage but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('既存のkintoneフィールドの設定' - existing kintone field settings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_choice_field' or 'create_lookup_field' by focusing on updating existing fields rather than creating new ones.

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 clear context about when NOT to use this tool (system field types cannot be updated), which helps the agent avoid incorrect invocations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_field_acl' or provide prerequisites beyond the constraint.

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