cigchat_flow_set_bot_fields

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses the HTTP method (PUT), the required 'Manage Flow' scope, and the 20-field limit, providing useful behavioral context. It does not explain effects such as atomicity, partial failure, or return values.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint, with no wasted words. However, it may be too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and has a confusing input schema (including an odd anyOf with 'not': {}), yet the description omits the array shape, return values, and error behavior. It also fails to distinguish itself from sibling batch/single-field 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?

The description does not explain the structure of the 'data' parameter, which is an array of objects with var_ns and value. The schema's 0% coverage means the description should compensate, but it remains vague ('multiple bot fields value').

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?

Description states 'update multiple bot fields value' with a batch limit of 20 and the HTTP endpoint, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cigchat_flow_set_bot_field which handle a single field.

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?

Usage is implied by 'multiple' and the 20-field limit, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over cigchat_flow_set_bot_field or cigchat_flow_set_bot_fields_by_name. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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