Update Form Field Option

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether omitted attributes are preserved or cleared (merge vs replace), whether 'type' must always be supplied, or how the nested `data` envelope is handled, all of which matter for a mutation with a nested object payload.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, its brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the single clause is the entire definition for a nested-object mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but the tool takes a nested `data` object with required `type` and `attributes`, and the description says nothing about how that payload behaves. For a mutation of this shape, the definition leaves the agent guessing about partial updates and required envelope fields.

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 only 50%, so the description is expected to compensate, and it does not — it mentions no parameters at all. The schema itself documents `id` well (including the warning not to use `form_field_option_id`) and partially documents `attributes`, but the description contributes zero meaning on top of it.

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 ('Update') plus the exact resource ('form_field_option') and the addressing key ('by id'), so the agent knows this mutates one existing option. It does not name or distinguish itself from near siblings such as create_form_field_option, get_form_field_option, or update_custom_field_option, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_form_field_option or get_form_field_option, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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