wetrack_update_metadata_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a metadata field but doesn't disclose whether the update is partial or full, whether omitted optional parameters are reset to defaults, whether the field_id must reference an existing field, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, but the Args block is embedded in the description and duplicates the input schema. The parameter explanations are terse and the options example is minimal. It's not bloated, but the structure mixes prose and schema-like content, making it less clean than a separate schema would be.

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 has 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should provide more context about update semantics, partial vs. full replacement, and the meaning of the response. The description is too thin to fully guide an agent in correctly invoking this mutation tool, especially for optional fields like options and is_required.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description only mentions 'field_id' and 'label' implicitly via the Args block, but the Args block is part of the description and does list all parameters with brief explanations. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of 'options' structure beyond a terse example, nor does it clarify that 'is_required' and 'helper_text' are optional updates. The description adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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: 'Update an existing metadata field.' It clearly identifies the action and target, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wetrack_create_metadata_field and wetrack_delete_metadata_field. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the field must already exist), nor does it reference sibling tools like wetrack_create_metadata_field or wetrack_toggle_metadata_field_status. The context is implied by the verb 'update' but no explicit usage conditions are given.

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