Update custom fields

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

Annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint) provide some behavioral hints, but the description adds no context about whether updates merge or replace existing fields, what happens to unspecified fields, or required permissions. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and a vague 'fields' array, the description is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct request. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced. The tool needs significantly more explanation to be usable.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It fails to explain the structure of the 'fields' array, the meaning of object keys, or how entity_type relates to the update. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('custom fields') with the qualifier 'multiple', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool kommo_custom_fields_update_one. It states exactly what the tool does.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_custom_fields_update_one, kommo_custom_fields_create, or kommo_custom_fields_delete. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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