metadata_manage

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

Annotations disclose only destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real value by specifying that values are 'bounded plain text' and that arbitrary RDF/XML is rejected — a meaningful constraint on payload content. However, it says nothing about what gets overwritten, whether metadata fields are replaced or merged, or the role of expectedRevision in guarding concurrent edits, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (bounded text, no arbitrary RDF/XML) carries information. It is efficient, though the density leaves a first-time reader needing to consult the schema for the document/elements split.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter description coverage, return values and field shapes are covered. Still missing for a destructive two-mode mutation: the concurrency contract of expectedRevision, workspace scoping expectations, and whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared.

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 oneOf branches, const actions, patterns and maxLengths are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'bounded plain text' and 'no arbitrary RDF/XML' loosely corroborate the length caps and restricted content, but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates SVG document metadata or element accessibility'), and the two modes map cleanly to the schema's action consts 'document' and 'elements'. It does not differentiate from siblings like accessibility_inspect or document_settings, which handle adjacent concerns.

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 'or' construction implies two usage modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (workspace/revision), and no routing away from alternatives such as accessibility_inspect for reads or document_settings for other document-level properties.

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