accelo_set_profile_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether the value overwrites an existing value, what happens on type mismatch, whether permissions are required, or whether the write is reversible. Only the input shape is described.

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 summary is front-loaded and the Args block is tight, with each parameter getting exactly one line. No filler sentences.

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 4-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs adequately but is thin on effects and outcomes. An agent still cannot tell what happens on success or how errors surface.

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% and all schema titles are generic, so the Args block is doing real work: it documents all four parameters with examples for object_type and a type-dependency note for value. It stops short of enumerating valid object_type values or the field-type-to-JSON mapping.

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 (profile field value on an object), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling accelo_set_extension_value, which is a near-identical operation on a different field family.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus accelo_set_extension_value, or when to read via accelo_get_profile_values first. The relationship to accelo_list_profile_fields (to discover the profile_field_id) is implied by the parameter docs but never stated as a workflow.

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