update_custom_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'update' but does not disclose whether this is a partial or full replacement, what permissions are required, whether omitted fields are preserved, or how the change is confirmed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficient sentence with the operation front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is too terse to convey the semantics it omits.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It should explain update semantics, required permissions, and the meaning of the required id and enum-constrained data_type.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only loosely maps to three of the four parameters (name, data_type, extra_data). It never explains the required id, the allowed data_type enum values, or the shape of extra_data, leaving key parameter meaning undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb (update) and resource (existing custom field), and names the updatable aspects (name, data type, configuration data). It implies the tool operates on existing fields but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like bulk_edit_custom_fields or create_custom_field.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as bulk_edit_custom_fields for multi-field edits. The word 'existing' hints that the field must already exist, but nothing states prerequisites or when this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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