ass_set_extradata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotency, in-place updates without duplication, and that remove deletes every entry with the identifier, though it does not cover permissions, save implications, or broader side effects.

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 definition is front-loaded and structured into Args and Returns sections. The Returns content is somewhat redundant because an output schema already exists, but the overall description remains efficient and easy to scan.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in detail, and it already covers the operation, all parameters, idempotency, and removal semantics. It is complete enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It does this well: ident is matched case-insensitively, value may be omitted when remove=True, doc_id=None selects the current document, and remove deletes matching entries instead of setting them.

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 verb and resource: setting or removing one [Aegisub Extradata] entry. It also marks the operation as idempotent and distinguishes it from the sibling listing tool ass_list_extradata.

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 explains the remove flag and when value may be omitted, which gives clear operational context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or state prerequisites, so usage remains implied rather than fully guided.

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