Update Form Field Placement Condition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement update, what happens to attributes omitted from the `attributes` object, or any permission requirements. For a mutation with a nested free-form data payload, this is a notable gap.

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, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than economical — the brevity comes at the cost of any behavioral or usage detail an agent would need.

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 need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a nested-object mutation tool, the description omits update semantics (partial vs full), which nested fields are required versus optional at the API level, and how it relates to the sibling get/update placement tools — leaving meaningful gaps.

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 only echoes that the record is targeted 'by id', which the schema already states in detail. It says nothing about the `data` object or its nested `attributes` (values, position, comparison, conditioned, form_field_id), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap at the top level.

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_condition) with the identifying key (by id), so an agent knows exactly what it mutates. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_form_field_placement_condition or update_form_field_placement, which is the only reason it falls 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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_form_field_placement or the corresponding get tool. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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