remove_custom_field_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a removal/clearing operation (implying mutation), but doesn't describe what happens to the field or task after removal, whether it's reversible, or what the response contains. Adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place and the dual verb phrasing (remove/clear) clarifies intent without redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is functional but minimal. It could benefit from stating the operation is destructive/non-reversible or clarifying that cleared fields revert to default. Adequate for simple usage but lacks depth.

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 100% - both task_id and field_id are described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the documentation.

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 'Remove/clear the value of a custom field on a task' uses a clear verb (remove/clear) with a specific resource (custom field value on a task). It clearly distinguishes from its sibling set_custom_field_value which does the opposite operation, so sibling differentiation is implicit but functional.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. However, the naming symmetry with set_custom_field_value and add/remove sibling pairs in the list makes the context reasonably clear. No alternatives are explicitly named or contrasted.

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