rm_set_custom_field_values

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

Annotations already establish that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and idempotent, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral detail, such as whether values are merged or replaced, how null/empty values are handled, or whether target_type has specific allowed entity kinds.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise, though the conciseness trades away essential semantic detail that the schema does not provide.

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?

With three required parameters, a nested values object, and no schema parameter descriptions, the tool needs substantially more context to be used correctly. The annotations and output schema fill some gaps, but the description still omits the values mapping convention and target_type semantics, so completeness is low.

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 by explaining target_id, target_type, and values. It does not explain the shape of the values map, valid target_type values, or how target_id maps to an entity, leaving all three required parameters underspecified.

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 uses a clear verb ('Set') and identifies the resource ('custom field values'), making the action distinct from read-only siblings like rm_list_custom_field_values. However, 'entity' is left vague and the description never explains which target types are supported, so it is only moderately specific.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus related custom-field tools or other mutation tools. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer suitability solely from the name.

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