Update Custom Field Option

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important deprecation status and the id-based update scope, but does not explain permissions, side effects, or what happens to unspecified attributes. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short clauses with the deprecation warning front-loaded. Every part is useful and there is no wasted text.

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 deprecated mutation tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description provides the key selection guidance: do not use it, use form field endpoints instead. It could be more complete by naming the exact replacement endpoint, but no critical agent-facing information is missing.

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?

The description only says the option is updated "by id," which the schema already documents in detail. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description should compensate for undocumented nested data fields such as type and default, but it does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Update a specific custom field option by id." It also flags deprecation and points toward form field endpoints, which helps distinguish it from active siblings like update_form_field_option. It does not name the exact replacement tool, but the purpose is clear.

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?

It explicitly says "[DEPRECATED] Use form field endpoints instead," giving a clear when-not-to-use condition and an alternative category. It does not name the exact sibling tool or describe any remaining valid legacy use case, but for a deprecated tool the routing guidance is strong.

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