set_item_length

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the mutation itself. It does not disclose whether changing length trims or stretches the media content, whether it affects other items, or any other side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 minimal and front-loaded: a single clear sentence plus a concise Args section that adds value by specifying units for length. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete. It leaves two required parameters semantically unexplained and does not describe how the item's content is affected, which are essential for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The description covers only the length parameter ('New length in seconds') but omits track_index and item_index entirely. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify how the target item is identified (e.g., zero-based indexing), leaving the agent to guess about two of the three required parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Set') and resource ('length of a media item'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling setters like set_item_position or set_item_volume. It does not mention the indexing parameters, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 intended use—changing a media item's length—is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other item setters, nor any prerequisites such as having an existing item selected or referenced. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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