set_scratch_disk_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'set scratch disk path' without explaining side effects, persistence, required project state, or error behavior. This is insufficient for an operation that mutates project settings.

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, short sentence with minimal fluff, but 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' is an unnecessary prefix that adds no value. It could be cut down to simply 'Set scratch disk path.'

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 setter with no annotations, output schema, or parameter details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify return values, failure modes, or how this interacts with sibling tools like `get_project_scratch_disks`, leaving critical gaps in understanding.

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 context indicates 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to explain parameters that don't exist.

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 phrase 'set scratch disk path' provides a clear verb and resource, but the prefix 'Premiere Pro expanded operation:' is vague and unhelpful. It doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling `set_project_scratch_disk`, so it misses the opportunity to differentiate.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `set_project_scratch_disk` or `get_project_scratch_disks`. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred.

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