set_scratch_disk_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, but not side effects, permissions required, error handling, or whether it overwrites existing paths. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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, which is concise but lacks necessary details for a tool that modifies project configuration. It is too minimal given the potential impact and sibling similarity.

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 and sparse description, the tool feels incomplete. Key context missing: whether the path must exist, what happens to existing media, and relationship to project scratch disk settings. Sibling set_project_scratch_disk further indicates need for differentiation.

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 both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds that it is 'for a specific media type', but that is already implied by the scratch_disk_type parameter. No additional semantics beyond schema are provided.

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 'Set the scratch disk path for a specific media type' clearly states the action (Set), the resource (scratch disk path), and the scope (specific media type). It distinguishes from the sibling 'set_project_scratch_disk' which likely sets the project-level scratch disk.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like set_project_scratch_disk. There is no mention of when to use, when not to use, or prerequisites. This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.

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