Set task custom fields

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

The description mentions 'set, or remove' which aligns with the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, adding a small amount of context. However, it does not explain the dry_run/confirm workflow or any side effects of removal, missing an opportunity to disclose behavior beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence and easy to scan. It packs several verbs which could be clearer, but it is appropriately concise without unnecessary filler.

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?

With 7 parameters, including a confirmation workflow and a destructive hint, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is too sparse to guide correct invocation. It omits critical details about the dry-run/confirm flow and how custom field removal works.

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 by explaining parameters like dry_run, confirm, unset, and fields. It provides only a high-level action list ('Discover, validate, set, or remove') and does not map any parameters to their behavior, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 identifies the tool as working with custom field values on a task, which distinguishes it from general task update tools. However, the verbs 'discover' and 'validate' are ambiguous and not clearly reflected in the input schema, making the purpose slightly less crisp.

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 tool name and title imply it is for custom field operations, but the description itself does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like update_task. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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