set_field

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the behavior disclosure burden. It discloses auto-switching notebook tabs, row validation/commit behavior, invalid-cell reporting, and the fact that onchange can alter other fields and that those changes are returned. It also exposes side effects such as quick-creating records and opening a selection dialog.

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 long but every section earns its place: purpose, supported types with concrete syntax, notebook behavior, list editing, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core action and then layers detail by complexity.

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 6-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers the main workflows, type-specific value encodings, and the return contract, so the tool is callable in most cases. It leaves scope undefined and does not describe what commit=false implies, which are small but real gaps in an otherwise rich definition.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does so for name/value (including typed formats and many2one dict options), line/list_field, and commit. The one gap is 'scope', whose default 'auto' is never explained, keeping this from a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set a field on the current form (or open dialog), by technical field name.' This clearly distinguishes set_field from sibling tools like click_button, open_menu, or add_line, and the scope (form/dialog/list cell) is stated up front.

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 for when the tool applies: current form, open dialog, and editable-list cells. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases or name alternatives, but the usage domain is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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