grocy_userfields_put

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, and the description adds important dry-run/confirm behavior. However, it does not clarify whether "replace" removes userfields not present in the fields map or leaves them untouched, which is a meaningful behavioral detail.

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 two sentences plus the endpoint, with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence contributes to understanding the operation or its dry-run behavior.

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 four-parameter mutation with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description covers the core action and the important dry-run mode. The only notable gap is the exact replacement behavior for omitted userfields, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so entity, fields, object_id, and confirm are already documented. The description's note about omitting confirm for dry-run repeats schema guidance and adds no further parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: "Replace userfield values for one object." The PUT endpoint reinforces the scope and distinguishes this from read-only userfield retrieval and generic object update tools.

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?

It gives a useful dry-run instruction via "Omit confirm for a dry-run," but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of grocy_objects_update or grocy_userfields_get. Usage is implied by the replace semantics rather than fully guided.

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