ghl_custom_field_update

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical context: locationId and showInForms are required on every update, and options replacement behavior (must include all existing options). No contradiction.

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 contains redundant text ('Update Custom Field By Id' repeated) and a technical first sentence. Could be more streamlined, though the info callout and critical details are well-placed.

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?

Covers supported objects, required fields, and options replacement behavior. No output schema exists, so return values are not expected. Adequate for a nested-parameter update tool.

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 emphasizes that locationId and showInForms are required on every update, reinforcing the schema. However, the 'id' parameter lacks description in both schema and description. Overall, moderate added value.

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 'Update Custom Field By Id' and specifies it supports only Custom Objects and Company, distinguishing it from siblings like ghl_custom_field_create, ghl_custom_field_delete, etc.

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 explicit when-not guidance by stating the tool only supports Custom Objects and Company, helping the agent avoid misuse. It lacks explicit alternatives but the scope limitation is clear.

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