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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating call, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: locked fields remain editable here, and the lock's purpose is purely advisory for agents. It also specifies the null-clears-to-default behavior, which is a meaningful side effect.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and both clarifying details—locked-field behavior and null semantics—earn their 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?

For a simple mutation with only three required parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough information to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is not stating how non-null values are handled or what the response contains, but the schema and tool's simplicity make these non-blocking.

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 schema documents `automationId` and `fieldId`, but leaves `value`'s semantics implicit despite its complex anyOf type. The description compensates by explaining the null case explicitly ('clears the field back to default'), which is the most behaviorally important parameter detail. It does not fully enumerate value semantics, but the schema covers the allowed types.

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 ('Set or clear') on a specific resource ('a config field's value'), which goes beyond the title and clearly distinguishes it from the many other update* siblings. It also conveys the core semantic distinction of setting versus clearing.

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 clear context: it is the tool to use for changing a config field's value, including locked fields, which are explicitly addressed. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but no direct sibling alternative exists for updating config fields.

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