cigchat_flow_set_bot_field

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only reveals the HTTP method (PUT) and required scope. It does not state whether it overwrites an existing value, whether it can create a field, what the response contains, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with no redundant words, but it under-specifies critical operational details. It is not bloated, but the brevity sacrifices the behavioral and contextual information an agent needs to invoke the tool confidently.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of similar sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It omits expected return values, side effects, how the field is identified, and differentiators from the many bot field related tools.

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 50%: var_ns is well-documented, but value has no schema description. The tool description implicitly identifies 'value' as the new field value through 'update bot field value', adding minimal meaning. It does not elaborate on value format or constraints, but the implied context partially compensates.

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 'update bot field value' with the endpoint 'PUT /flow/set-bot-field', indicating a write operation on a bot field. However, it does not distinguish from closely related siblings like cigchat_flow_set_bot_field_by_name or cigchat_flow_set_bot_fields, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cigchat_flow_set_bot_field_by_name or cigchat_flow_set_bot_fields. The mention of 'Requires the Manage Flow scope on the token' is a permission constraint, not usage context.

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