remove_custom_field_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the action (clear/reset) and return value (confirmation with ids), but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or constraints. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences convey the action, return, and usage guidance with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and each sentence adds value.

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 tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return. It would benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., field must exist on the task) but is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only implicitly references the required parameters (task_id and field_id) via the action.

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 the action ('clear a custom field's value'), the resource ('task'), and the result ('resets to empty'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_custom_field_value by explicitly advising to 'use to unset a field rather than overwrite it.'

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool ('to unset a field rather than overwrite'), which differentiates it from set operations. However, it does not mention when not to use it or other alternatives beyond this contrast.

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