Set pane metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It thoroughly discloses critical behaviors: merge semantics (string values overwrite, null deletes, untouched keys kept), reserved key names (role/parent/agentType/task), and the fact that the return value is the true merged metadata read back from the app, not the raw input. This is comprehensive for a metadata update 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, followed by compact yet essential details on behavior, return value, and intended usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (two parameters, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains merge behavior, return value, and reserved keys, leaving no significant ambiguity about what the tool does or what to expect as a result.

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?

The input schema covers the meta parameter with a clear description of key-value behavior, giving 50% coverage. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing reserved keys and clarifying the merge behavior. However, the paneId parameter remains minimally described, though its purpose is self-evident.

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 a specific action ("Attach or update free-form metadata on a pane") with a well-defined resource (pane) and unique scope (free-form metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_speech or lock_pane, which target different aspects of a pane.

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 context for when to use the tool, including a concrete use case ("This is how an orchestrator records the org chart as data") and the merge semantics that define its behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection.

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