Update Custom Field

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the server replaces the entire field config, not just partial update. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the replacement behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a critical constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (10 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on what happens to omitted optional fields (resets?) and does not explain error handling or permissions.

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?

All 10 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing that 'name' must always be supplied and that the server replaces config, but does not elaborate on parameter details.

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') and the resource ('custom field by ID'), distinguishing it from create_field and list_fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling update_multiple_fields for bulk updates.

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 description provides a key guideline: 'name must always be supplied (the server replaces the field config).' It implies usage for updating a single field but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like update_multiple_fields.

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