set_scratch_disk_path

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 says 'expanded operation' but doesn't explain what that means, what the side effects are, whether it mutates state, or what the expected input structure should be. The tool clearly performs a write operation, but no details are provided.

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 one short sentence, but under-specification is not conciseness. Every word should add value; 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is filler, and 'set scratch disk path' simply restates the tool name. It is not properly structured to convey useful information.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter schema. The description provides no context about return values, failure modes, or relation to other scratch disk operations. It is completely inadequate for reliable agent 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?

The input schema defines no parameters (only a generic object with arbitrary properties). The description does not compensate by explaining what properties to provide (e.g., the path key or value format). With 0 defined params and no description guidance, the agent is left completely in the dark about how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 ('set scratch disk path') but adds the vague qualifier 'expanded operation', which doesn't clarify how this differs from the sibling tool 'set_project_scratch_disk'. It's clear on the basic verb+resource but fails to distinguish from a likely overlapping tool.

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 'set_project_scratch_disk' or 'get_project_scratch_disks'. The description gives no context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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