edit_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies mutation, but the description does not clarify whether the original file is modified or a new file is created (though output_name suggests a copy), whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what error handling looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single short sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the primary action. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. This is appropriately concise given the lack of other structured information.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide a complete picture. It does not explain the fate of unspecified fields, the exact effect on the file, the format of the output_name default, or any constraints. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool of this 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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'file' and 'output_name' have descriptions), so the description must add meaning. It merely lists the field names that already appear in the schema without providing semantics for types, formats, or behavior (e.g., how 'keywords' array is handled, what 'output_name' suffix means). This adds minimal value over the parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and names the resource ('PDF metadata fields') while enumerating the specific fields (title, author, subject, keywords). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'view_metadata' and 'remove_metadata'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The existence of sibling tools 'view_metadata' and 'remove_metadata' implies differentiation, but the description does not state conditions or exclusions. It only implies usage for editing metadata fields without saying when it is preferred over deleting or viewing metadata.

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