clickup_set_custom_field

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. 'Set' implies a mutation, but nothing is disclosed about idempotency, required permissions, what happens to a prior value, or how field-type mismatches are handled — all material for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence with the operation front-loaded and the differentiating parenthetical last. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: the schema covers inputs fully, but the description omits return behavior, error conditions, and permission requirements that an agent would want before calling.

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%: value, task_id (with ID format examples), and field_id are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. type-dependent value encoding) beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Set a custom field value on a task') and immediately distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by noting that update_task cannot perform this operation. An agent can select it without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical routes the agent explicitly to this tool when update_task is insufficient, naming the alternative. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or any prerequisites (e.g. field must exist on the task's list), so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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