field_config_updateUpdate Drupal field configurations by providing a config_id and changing properties like label, description, required status, or settings.
Update a field configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| required | No | ||
| settings | No | ||
| config_id | Yes | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies mutation via 'Update' but says nothing about permissions required, whether omitted parameters preserve or clear existing values, or whether the change is reversible.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so there is no structural waste. However, it is under-specified rather than truly concise, compressing away information the agent needs.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input semantics and behavioral effects are entirely absent.
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% and the description names none of the five parameters (label, required, settings, config_id, description). The agent gets no meaning for config_id's format or for the semantics of the opaque 'settings' object that the schema explicitly leaves open with additionalProperties.
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 names a verb (Update) and a resource (field configuration) and nothing more. It is essentially the tool name and title restated, and it gives no way to distinguish this from siblings such as field_storage_update, field_config_create, or field_config_delete beyond the obvious verb.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this targets an existing field's config object, when field_storage_update would be the right sibling instead, or whether the field must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.