set_rating

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Set', which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing ratings, is permanent, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—action, range, and target—is informative and earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and parameter constraints but omits behavioral context like permanence, permissions, or overwrite behavior. Given no annotations, it is adequate but leaves clear gaps that could impact correct invocation.

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 add meaning. It provides the rating range (0 to 5) and clarifies that photo_ids supports one or more photos. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it leaves id types and exact rating semantics to schema inference.

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 ('Set') and resource ('star rating') with an explicit range (0 to 5) and target ('one or more photos'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like set_keywords or set_develop_settings by naming the exact property being modified.

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 implies usage when the agent wants to assign a star rating to photos, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving selection largely to the agent's interpretation.

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