cigchat_flow_set_bot_fields_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the required 'Manage Flow' scope and the PUT endpoint, which are useful. However, it does not disclose whether existing fields are overwritten, what happens on invalid field names, whether the operation is atomic/partial, or what the response contains. This is modest but incomplete transparency 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 one concise sentence that packs in the key facts: action, resource, batch size, endpoint, and auth scope. No wasted words; it is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers auth, endpoint, and batch characteristics. However, it omits details about the request body format (beyond the schema), behavior on errors, or what response to expect. While the schema provides some structure, the overall description leaves gaps for a complete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'data' parameter structure. It only hints at 'field name' and 'up to 20 bot fields', but lacks details on the array-of-objects format, required sub-fields (name, value), or any constraints on names/values. The schema shows the structure but with an unusual 'anyOf' and no descriptions, so the tool description must compensate and fails to do so.

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 a specific action: 'update multiple bot fields value by field name'. It identifies the resource (bot fields), the operation (update), the quantity (multiple, up to 20), and the key distinguishing trait (by field name). This differentiates it from siblings like 'flow_set_bot_field_by_name' (single) and 'flow_set_bot_fields' (likely by ID).

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 via 'multiple' and 'up to 20', suggesting batch updates by name. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the auth scope. The mention of the endpoint and auth scope gives some contextual clue, but no direct guidance on selecting between similar tools.

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