set_task_custom_field_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sets/overwrites a value, and that the value shape depends on field type. However, it lacks details on error conditions, permissions, or confirmation behavior, which is a gap 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?

Two sentences, each adding value. First sentence states the action. Second provides critical usage guidance. No redundant information. Properly front-loaded.

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 of the tool (6 parameters, dynamic value shape) and no output schema, the description covers the main concerns: action, value dependency, and prerequisite lookup. It could mention that existing values are overwritten, but that is already implied. Overall sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'value' parameter by explaining that its shape depends on field type and suggesting to look up the type. This goes beyond the schema description, which references the tool description itself.

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 states 'Set (or overwrite) a custom field's value on a task' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_custom_field_value' and 'get_*_custom_fields' by focusing on setting the value, and it clarifies the overwrite behavior.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Look up the type with a get_*_custom_fields tool first', providing clear guidance on prerequisite knowledge. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is clear given sibling context.

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