acc_set_custom_attributes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: attribute names are resolved against folder definitions, and unknown names are reported with available options, which helps the agent anticipate error handling. It doesn't over-elaborate side effects, but adds useful behavior beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, leads with the core action, and each clause adds value—examples, resolution behavior, and error reporting. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, annotations are present, and the schema covers all 4 parameters, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, gives real-world use cases, and notes error behavior. No critical gaps remain.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds some value by explaining resolution behavior and giving domain examples, but it doesn't significantly go beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Set custom attribute values on a document version' and provides concrete examples (moving S2 to S3, stamping Revision, filling Uniclass). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like acc_list_custom_attributes and acc_create_custom_attribute.

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 examples give clear usage context ('e.g. move a container... stamp the Revision... fill the Uniclass classification'), and the mention of attribute name resolution implies when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough.

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