update_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description restatement. The description adds only the 'existing field' and 'collection' scope, but does not explain what updating may affect or whether field type changes can destroy data. This is acceptable given the annotations, but no extra behavioral depth is added.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing or filler. It is concise without being vague at the purpose level.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the one-line description is minimal. However, the rich parameter schema and annotations compensate for much of the missing context, making the tool minimally usable. It still lacks guidance on partial update semantics, destructive side effects of changing field types, and relationship to create_field/delete_field.

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 descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. An agent must rely on the schema for details about collection, field, type, unique, required, interface, options, validation, default_value, and note.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing field in a collection'. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from create_field, and 'field' clearly separates it from update_item and collection-level operations. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the operation and resource are clear enough.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives such as create_field or update_item are mentioned. The only implicit hint is that the field must already exist. An agent must infer selection criteria from the tool name and sibling list rather than from deliberate guidance.

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