Custom Fields Set Values

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

Annotations already declare write, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — per-entity scope requirements, the exact endpoint, and the API version — but leaves the key behavioral question unanswered: whether the values payload replaces all existing values or merges/patches them.

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?

Four short lines, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the endpoint/scope/version details as scannable follow-ups. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers auth scope and endpoint but omits overwrite/merge semantics and any indication of what the call returns. Adequate to invoke, thin on consequences of invoking.

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 100%, so the schema already documents entity, entity_id and values with an example payload. The description's only addition is mapping entity/entity_id onto the URL template, which is marginal; no extra semantics about payload shape or id limits.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Set custom field values on one entity instance', reinforced by the concrete HTTP path PUT /{entity}/{entity_id}/custom-fields/values. It is distinguishable from the sibling definition tools (custom_fields_create/update/delete), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with tiendanube_custom_fields_update.

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 supplies prerequisites (required OAuth scopes per entity) but no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as tiendanube_custom_fields_update or the corresponding *_get_by_entity_id read tool. An agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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