Update Card Custom Field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the set/clear operation and value formats, but does not mention permissions, error handling, whether setting overwrites existing values, or rate limits. This is adequate for basic operation but leaves important mutation-side-effect context uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the purpose followed by prerequisite and format details. It is efficient and well organized, though some value-format detail duplicates the schema and could be trimmed given full schema coverage.

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?

Given four parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the key invocation knowledge: prerequisite lookup and per-type value formats. It lacks behavioral edges like permissions or error responses, but is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description largely repeats the schema's value format details and clear instruction, adding only minor context like directing to get_board_custom_fields for list option IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb pair ('Set or clear') and resource ('custom field value on a card'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling read tools like get_board_custom_fields. An agent can immediately tell this tool mutates a card's custom field.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: 'Use get_board_custom_fields first to find field IDs and types.' It also specifies how to clear a field. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparison is provided, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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