clio_set_custom_field_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'set' without explaining whether this overwrites all existing custom fields, how invalid IDs are handled, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded with the primary action. The related tool hint is concise and directly useful. No superfluous information.

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 tool has 3 required parameters, a nested array, and no output schema, yet the description does not mention request mechanics (e.g., multiple fields, parent_id role, error cases). The single dependency hint is not enough to fully use the tool correctly without inferring from the schema.

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 only 33%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that parent_type allows 'matter or contact' and that field IDs come from clio_list_custom_fields. However, it does not explain parent_id semantics or the expected structure of the values array beyond what the schema already states.

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 the action (set) and the resource (custom field values), and specifies the allowed target objects (matter or contact). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform the same operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to set custom field values) and gives a direct pointer to a prerequisite sibling tool (clio_list_custom_fields) for obtaining field IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage context is evident.

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