add_custom_metadata_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors, but it only says "expanded operation" — vague and unhelpful. It doesn't state whether this modifies the project permanently, requires a specific context, or has side effects, leaving the agent in the dark.

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 extremely short, which is good for conciseness, but it's so underspecified that it lacks substance. It's a single sentence with no waste, yet the term "expanded" adds noise rather than clarity. It's minimal but not effectively structured.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameters, the description is the only source of information. It fails entirely to explain what the tool does operationally, what arguments are expected (even if zero parameters, perhaps they come from context), or what the result will be. It is grossly inadequate for a complex tool like Premiere Pro metadata operations.

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?

The schema shows 0 parameters with 100% coverage (vacuously), so the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details but also doesn't need to since there are none. However, the vagueness of "expanded operation" fails to clarify how the tool knows which metadata field to add (likely via context), so minor deduction applies.

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 is a near-tautology: "expanded operation" adds no meaning beyond the name. It states the verb (add) and resource (custom metadata field), but "expanded" is unclear and the tool is distinct from siblings like set_metadata or add_marker without any clarifying scope or difference.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs set_metadata, attach_custom_property, or add_marker. It doesn't specify whether it applies to project items, clips, or sequences, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a project must be open).

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