Update single custom field

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the fact that it updates a field. Annotations include idempotentHint and openWorldHint but not readOnly/destructive hints, so the agent is left uninformed about side effects, permissions, or whether the update is partial or full replacement. The description does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 short sentence, demonstrating conciseness. However, it approaches under-specification: it adds only 'by ID' beyond the title and provides minimal value relative to the tool's parameters and context. It is not verbose, but it fails to earn its place by omitting nearly all useful 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 three required parameters (one being a complex nested object), no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or the structure of the update payload, leaving the agent without essential context for a correct invocation.

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 only mentions 'ID', leaving the required 'entity_type' enum and the nested 'field' object completely unexplained. The agent must infer the meaning of these parameters solely from the schema, which is inadequate for correct tool usage.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('custom field'), and scope ('one ... by ID'), which clearly communicates the tool's core function. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like kommo_custom_fields_update (likely batch) by the word 'one', though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 such as kommo_custom_fields_update, kommo_custom_fields_create, or kommo_custom_fields_delete. There is no mention of prerequisites, entity type selection, or suitability for different scenarios.

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