edit_user_collection_custom_field_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it edits a value, implying mutation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the value already exists.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, but it is too brief for a tool with 6 required parameters and no annotations. It lacks structure or front-loading of key details.

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 the tool has 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error conditions, and usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. Critical details about instance_id vs release_id or how to obtain field_id are missing, leaving agents to guess.

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 ('Edit') and the resource ('custom field value for a release in a user's collection'), making the purpose specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling edit tools like edit_release_rating or edit_user_collection_folder, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit_release_rating, edit_user_collection_folder). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to retrieve custom field definitions via get_user_collection_custom_fields first.

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