set_job_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full transparency. It states that standard fields are untouched, which is a behavioral guarantee, but does not disclose whether existing custom fields are overwritten or appended, nor does it mention permissions or side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and distinguishing feature.

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?

While the output schema exists (not shown), the description does not explain the 'slug' parameter's meaning (presumably a job identifier) nor does it clarify if multiple fields can be set or the merging behavior. For a simple tool, it is moderately complete but has gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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?

The description does not explain the 'slug' parameter at all, and only vaguely implies that 'fields' are custom fields. The schema itself has a description for the fields items but not for the top-level properties (0% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters.

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 identifies the action ('Set') and the resource ('custom-field values on a job') and explicitly distinguishes itself from update_job by stating 'without touching any standard fields.' This effectively differentiates it from siblings like update_job.

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 implies usage context (only when setting custom fields without affecting standard fields) but does not explicitly mention when to use vs alternatives like update_job, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer the decision criterion.

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