set_project_scratch_disk

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'set' (a write operation) but does not clarify whether it overwrites, merges, or requires the project to be open. No mention of side effects or permissions.

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 with no redundant words. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's complexity (4 parameters, mutating state), the description is too minimal. It does not explain expected behavior, best practices, or the impact on the project. It should provide more context to ensure 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly named and described (e.g., 'Path for captured video'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the categories, so it meets the baseline for a well-schemed tool without adding extra value.

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 verb 'set' and the resource 'project scratch disk paths' for captured video, audio, and previews. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'set_scratch_disk_path' which performs a similar function with a single path, causing potential ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. For a configuration tool, it fails to indicate if a project must be open or if setting paths will affect ongoing operations.

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