set_custom_field_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that value shape depends on field type, but does not disclose behaviors such as validation, upsert behavior, or side effects. The 'value_options' parameter is undocumented.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every part serves a purpose.

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 complexity (6 params, nested objects, many siblings), the description is insufficient. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and differentiation from the parallel sibling 'set_task_custom_field_value'. Mutation tools need more context.

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 67%. The description adds examples of value shapes (text, number, etc.), which provides meaning beyond the schema's 'Value matching the field's type'. However, it does not explain the two undocumented parameters ('value_options', 'custom_task_ids').

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 tool sets a custom field value on a task and hints at the value shape. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'set_task_custom_field_value' which appears nearly identical.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_custom_field_value' or 'set_task_custom_field_value'. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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