cigchat_flow_set_bot_field_by_name

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

The description discloses the required 'Manage Flow' scope and the HTTP PUT method, providing useful context. However, it does not mention behavior for non-existent fields, whether the operation is destructive, or the response format. With no annotations, this is only partially transparent.

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 sentence with no filler, including the endpoint and scope requirement. Excellent front-loading and zero waste.

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 simple update tool with two string params, the description covers the core intent but lacks guidance on return values, error conditions, and behavior when the field doesn't exist. Without an output schema, some of this context would be helpful.

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 clarifies that 'name' is the bot field name and 'value' is the value to set, directly mapping to the two parameters. Given the schema has 0% description coverage, this is valuable, though it lacks format or constraint details beyond the schema's string types.

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 specific verb 'update' and resource 'bot field', and explicitly states the identification method 'by bot field name'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_bot_field (likely ID-based) and set_bot_fields_by_name (plural).

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 the tool is used when you have the bot field name rather than an ID, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions the required scope but not when to prefer this over other field update tools.

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