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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds only the bulk/entity-count context. It does not explain whether existing values are overwritten, whether repeated calls accumulate, or what permissions are required — gaps that matter for a non-idempotent writer.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a concrete example. Only the loose 'etc.' weakens precision, but nothing is redundant.

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 4-parameter bulk write tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and one use case but omits parameter-level detail, overwrite/reversibility behavior, and permission requirements. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carries the load and only partially compensates. It implies entityIds/category via 'one or more entities' and hints at values via the 'deadline' example, but never names parameters and is silent on the category/subCategory enums and the values array semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (set) and resource (custom field values) with the target scope (one or more entities, listing queue items/files/printers). An agent can distinguish it from read siblings like list_custom_fields, but the description never names those siblings or contrasts itself against them.

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 second sentence gives a concrete usage context (setting a 'deadline' across many queue items at once), which steers the agent toward bulk usage. However, it offers no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to the read-side alternatives such as list_custom_fields_for.

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