update_form_fieldModify a form field’s settings by ID, including its kind, name, enabled status, visibility, and where it appears or is required on incident forms.
Update a specific form_field by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the form field (fills `{id}` in /v1/form_fields/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `form_field_id` argument. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this is a partial or full-replacement update (the schema's additionalProperties:false hints at replacement, but that is left implicit), nor what permission is needed or what happens to omitted attributes.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding, so it is not verbose. But it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity costs information an agent needs for a nested-object mutation.
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 taking a nested JSON:API payload with a large enum surface and non-obvious rules (problem-kind restrictions, ignored id/slug fields, resource_type change constraints), the description should mention update semantics and that the full attributes object is required. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain returns, but the behavioral gaps remain.
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 offers no parameter detail whatsoever, but the nested schema is unusually rich — attribute-level descriptions cover slugs being ignored, the `shown`/`required` enumerations, resource_type constraints, and problem-field rules. At roughly 50% top-level coverage with heavy nested documentation, the schema carries the load and a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource ('Update a specific form_field by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from get_form_field, create_form_field, and list_form_fields among the siblings. It stops short of saying what an update affects or how it differs from related tools like update_form_field_placement, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus create_form_field, update_form_field_placement, or update_form_field_option. No prerequisites, no mention that problem fields have restrictions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer everything from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.