set_field_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states a simple action; it doesn't mention side effects like creating a field (create_if_missing param), search behavior, or session dependence. The description is too terse to disclose the tool's actual behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, which is good. However, it's so short that it under-specifies a tool with 5 parameters and various options. It's concise, but at the expense of necessary detail.

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 tool with 5 parameters including booleans for search and creation, and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't mention how field lookup works, what happens if field is missing, or any error cases. An agent lacks crucial context to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at 'name or title' (relating to field_name and search_by_title) but doesn't explain value, session_id, or create_if_missing. The description adds almost no semantic value over the schema.

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 has a clear verb ('Set') and resource ('form field'), and specifies the method ('by name or title'). It distinguishes from table tools like table_set_field but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar form tools like set_form_fields or toggle_field, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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. It doesn't mention context (e.g., when a form is open) or exclusions (e.g., for table fields use table_set_field). The agent has to infer applicability from the description alone.

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