lightroom_set_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that keywords are mutated, but it does not explain what 'replace' does to existing keywords, whether the operation is destructive, what happens if a keyword is absent, or any permission/error behavior.

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. Every word contributes to the core operation and target resource.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no schema-level parameter descriptions, this is too thin. The critical semantics of the 'mode' parameter and the behavior of 'replace' are missing; an agent could easily misuse the tool when attempting a destructive replacement. The presence of an output schema softens the need to describe return values, but the operational gaps remain significant.

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. It does clarify the roles of photo_ids ('specified photos'), keywords, and the mode semantics ('Add, remove, or replace'). However, it does not specify possible mode values, their exact behavior, or the accepted forms of photo_ids.

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 ('Add, remove, or replace') on a clear resource ('keywords') targeting 'specified photos'. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'set_keywords' when both are present.

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 tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose 'add' versus 'remove' versus 'replace'. The description implies the general use case but provides no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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