Update Form Field Placement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own, such as partial-update semantics, validation failures (e.g. the 422 on form_set_id resource_type mismatch), or whether omitted attributes are preserved.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is wasted, yet little is said.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, which lowers the burden. Still, for a mutation tool with eight optional nested attributes and documented validation constraints, a one-line description leaves the agent without the update semantics or scope needed to call it confidently.

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 50%, and the description names only the id, adding nothing about the 'data.attributes' payload. The nested attributes (position, required, form_set_id, operators) are documented in the schema, but the description offers no overview of what can be changed, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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') and resource ('form_field_placement') plus a scoping cue ('by id'), which is slightly more than the title restatement. However, it does nothing to separate it from near-identical siblings like update_form_field, update_form_field_placement_condition, or update_form_field_option, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_form_field or update_form_field_placement_condition, and no prerequisites or constraints. The agent must derive selection logic entirely from the tool name.

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