accelo_set_extension_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about permissions, whether an existing value is overwritten, what happens on an invalid object_type/field combination, or error behavior. The only behavioral hint is the typed-field note, which is itself unreliable.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the argument list is compact and scannable. The Args block is a bit repetitive of parameter names, but it earns its place by adding the object_type examples.

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?

A mutation tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description identifies the parameters but omits overwrite/conflict behavior, permission requirements, and any response indication, and it references non-existent typed-value parameters.

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 must compensate; it lists all four required parameters and gives a useful example for object_type ('issues', 'jobs'). However, it directs the agent to 'use value_int, value_date, value_id for typed fields' — parameters that do not exist in the input schema — creating confusion rather than adding usable semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('an extension field value on an object'), which is distinguishable from siblings such as accelo_set_profile_value and accelo_get_extension_values. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so differentiation is left partly to the reader.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus accelo_set_profile_value, accelo_get_extension_values, or accelo_list_extension_fields, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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