Update one catalog custom field

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotations already convey (idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It does not explain how the 'field' object is applied (e.g., merge or replace), what happens on invalid input, or any side effects, leaving the agent with minimal understanding of the operation's nuances.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could have included more useful details without losing conciseness.

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 with nested object parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the structure of 'field', the response format, or any edge cases, making it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining the meaning of catalog_id, id, or especially the 'field' object, whose structure is unclear (free-form object with string keys). The agent cannot reliably construct the required parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('catalog custom field'), and the scope ('a single'), distinguishing it from bulk update siblings like kommo_catalog_custom_fields_update and from non-catalog custom field tools like kommo_custom_fields_update_one.

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 word 'single' implies this is for updating one catalog custom field at a time, contrasting with possible bulk operations. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternative update tools, nor any exclusion criteria.

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