Ghl Update Custom Field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. 'WRITES to the live account' explicitly signals a live mutation, which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or effects on existing data, so the disclosure is only partially complete.

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 highly concise: two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the live-write warning is placed prominently in the second sentence.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description is too sparse for correct invocation. It misses parameter semantics, usage conditions, and context around the optional location_id. The live-write warning is helpful, but an agent still lacks important operational details for safe and correct use.

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 needed to compensate. 'Rename a custom field' hints that 'name' is the new name and 'field_id' identifies the target, but it does not explain these parameters explicitly, and the optional 'location_id' is completely unexplained.

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 action and resource: 'Rename a custom field.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ghl_create_custom_field and ghl_delete_custom_field, which involve creating or deleting rather than updating.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies an update/rename operation, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or mention that creating or deleting should be handled by siblings.

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