update_field

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

The description indicates the tool is a mutating operation but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that captures the essence. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but could arguably include more detail without losing conciseness.

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 tool with a complex nested input schema and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the input object or what the response contains. The tool's complexity demands a richer description.

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?

The description lists some parameters (display name, description, etc.) but the schema has many more not mentioned (e.g., settings, coercion_strategy, fk_target_field_id). The nested structure of the 'input' parameter is not explained. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 that the tool updates field metadata and lists specific attributes (display name, description, semantic type, visibility settings). This provides a good understanding of the tool's purpose, though it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'update_field_values'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or limitations mentioned. The user is left to infer usage from the description alone.

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