set_preset_metadata

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive. The description adds the 'exact revision guard' which provides concurrency context, and the mention of 'plan or update' hints at a two-phase process. However, it does not explicitly disclose the requirement for a dry run to obtain a confirmationToken before executing an update, nor the consequences of a revision mismatch. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds some value but leaves key behavioral details implicit.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and packs the key guard constraint efficiently. No filler or redundancy.

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 7 parameters and a two-phase commit pattern (plan via dryRun, then update with confirmationToken), but the description does not explain this workflow. An agent calling this tool without prior knowledge would not understand the required sequence of dry run followed by execution. Given the complexity and lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete for correct usage.

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 each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides. The interaction between dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken is not explained beyond individual parameter descriptions, so the description does not compensate for the orchestration details.

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 (plan or update) and a clear resource (user tags and favorite state for one preset), and adds a distinguishing constraint (exact revision guard). It clearly differentiates from read-only tools like get_preset_metadata and other metadata setters.

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. It does not mention any sibling tools or conditions for choosing this over get_preset_metadata or set_browser_item_metadata. The dual 'plan or update' hint implies a workflow, but the description does not state when each mode is appropriate or when to prefer another tool.

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