set_xmp_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether the supplied XML replaces all existing XMP wholesale, whether malformed XML is rejected, or what permissions are needed — meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target are immediately clear. It is arguably too terse given the operation's risk, but there is no wasted text.

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 an unannotated write operation with no output schema, the description should explain overwrite semantics and validation behavior; a 9-word sentence leaves the agent guessing about the consequences of the call.

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 coverage is 100%, with both nodeId and xmpXml documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The word 'raw' hints that xmpXml is an unprocessed XML blob rather than structured fields, but adds little beyond the schema's 'XMP metadata as XML string'.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('raw XMP metadata XML') scoped to a project item, which an agent can distinguish from get_xmp_metadata and get_file_metadata. It does not, however, differentiate itself from set_clip_metadata or set_clip_description in the sibling list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus set_clip_metadata or set_clip_description, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the item to already have XMP or having a valid XML payload from get_xmp_metadata.

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