set_item_in_out

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds minor context (it operates on a project item and marks source range) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or state changes beyond the obvious.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is purposeful with no 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 description adequately covers the tool's purpose given its simplicity and the rich schema/annotations. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable without an output schema. Slight room to mention optional parameters or required item_id.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond 'Set in and/or out points'; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Set in and/or out points'), the resource ('project item in the project panel'), and the purpose ('marks source range for editing'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_source_in_out' (which likely operates in the source monitor) by specifying 'project panel'.

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 the tool is used to define a source range for editing but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like 'set_source_in_out' or 'clear_item_in_out'. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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