Update custom field

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement (custom_fields:write for OAuth integrations) and the confirm-gating precondition, which are behavioral facts not present in the structured fields. It still doesn't say what state is lost on update, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two gating facts (confirm, OAuth scope). Nothing is padded, though the opening sentence is pure redundancy with the name and title.

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 destructive 7-parameter mutation with a nested payload object and no output schema, the description covers the auth scope and confirm gate but says nothing about what the update replaces, whether fields are merged or overwritten, or what the call returns. Annotations and the 86%-documented schema carry most of the remaining burden, making this minimally adequate rather than 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 86%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, payload, payload_file, publication_id and custom_field_id in detail. The description only echoes the confirm=true rule and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence restates the name and title almost verbatim ('Update custom field'), adding no scope or resource detail. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like patch_custom_field, create_custom_field, or delete_custom_field, so an agent cannot tell which custom-field mutation to pick without opening the schemas.

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 one concrete usage rule: confirm=true only when the user asked for exactly this action, which is real invocation guidance. It offers no when-to-use versus patch_custom_field or create_custom_field, and no exclusions, so usage is only partially implied.

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