set_xmp_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether existing metadata is overwritten, required permissions, or error conditions. The description only states the action without any disclosure of side effects or limitations.

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 that conveys the essential information without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place without 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?

For a write operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens to existing metadata, how to handle errors, or the expected format of the XMP XML string. Additional context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 provides descriptions for both item_id and xmp_xml, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing that the XMP XML must be complete, but this is already implied in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 raw XMP metadata') and the target resource ('on a project item'). It also specifies the input format ('provide complete XMP XML string'), which unambiguously defines what the tool does. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_xmp_metadata and set_metadata.

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 that the user must provide the complete XMP XML string, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_metadata for simpler metadata updates). No guidance on prerequisites, when not to use, or potential side effects is provided.

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