set_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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this mutates data, whether the field must exist beforehand, what happens if the field is read-only, or what the response contains. For a setter/mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is needed.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core operation compactly. It's appropriately short for a simple setter tool, though it could have added one clause about field-ID provenance without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a mutation tool (setter) with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance. The description doesn't explain how to obtain field_id (e.g., via get_list_custom_fields), whether values are validated, or what errors might occur for wrong field types. For a 3-parameter mutation tool, this is under-specified.

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%, so the schema documents task_id, field_id, and value. The description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema. The value parameter has a generic description ('type depends on the field type') which is somewhat weak but the schema does cover it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load here.

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 clear verb+resource combination: 'Set the value of a custom field on a task'. It identifies what is being modified (custom field value) and on what entity (task). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'remove_custom_field_value', but the contrast is reasonably obvious given the verb difference.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_custom_field_value, or how it relates to update_task. No prerequisites are mentioned, such as needing the field to already be defined on the task or the task type. The description provides no usage context at all beyond the basic operation.

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