set_custom_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (set) without mentioning whether values are overwritten, required permissions, side effects, or response details. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, succinct and front-loaded. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and one parameter but omits details on lead_id and value. It does not reference sibling tools or explain the output, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand usage context.

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 should add meaning. It explains field_name (API parameter name and where to find it) but does not describe lead_id or value. This partially compensates but leaves two parameters undocumented.

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 clearly states 'Set a custom field on a lead' which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_lead_fields' by focusing on custom fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that field_name is the API parameter name (e.g., custom2413) and directs users to the LawRuler Intake Form Builder for finding custom field names. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context implies it is for custom fields only, which is adequate guidance.

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