Update custom field value

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the entity scope and the API endpoint but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permission requirements or side effects. It is consistent with annotations and provides modest extra context.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. The additional sentence about the API endpoint is slightly cryptic but not verbose. It could be omitted, but overall it is succinct and well-structured.

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 good schema descriptions and annotations, the description provides adequate high-level context. It identifies the target entities and the action. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema) or the force mechanism in depth, but those are covered in the schema. It is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 descriptions cover the parameters well (75% coverage), including the force behavior and assigned_to_id semantics. The description only echoes the scope ('organization, group, or device') without adding significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's action: 'Update custom field value' and 'Set a custom field value for the organization, group, or device.' It identifies the resource (custom field value) and the scope (org/group/device), distinguishing it from sibling tools like updateCustomField (which updates the field definition).

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 usage context: it sets values for organizations, groups, or devices. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the scope definition makes the intended use clear. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but is not misleading.

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