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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the write is scoped to a team-defined field on selected records. However, it omits a significant behavioral trait: the required expected_version parameter implies optimistic concurrency control, and the description never mentions version-conflict behavior or partial-failure semantics on a 2000-record batch.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the core action front-loaded and a helpful example at the end. Nothing is wasted, though one more clause on clearing or versioning would have earned its place.

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?

The description accurately identifies the resource, the field, and the batch nature, and the example clarifies intent. With no output schema, this concise statement is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's essential operation.

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 must carry the burden, yet it does not. It vaguely gestures at record_ids, key, and value ('one of the team's own fields', 'selected records') but says nothing about expected_version, collection_id, the key min/max length, or the 2000-record cap.

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 verb pair and resource: 'Sets or clears one of the team's own fields on the selected records,' with a concrete example ('status of Called'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_your_fields and save_your_fields, though it never names them explicitly.

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 implies the tool can both set and clear a field, but never explains how to trigger clearing (omitting value? passing null? empty string?), nor when to use this versus save_your_fields for defining fields. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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