set_xmp_metadata

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

The annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description does not add behavioral context beyond the verb 'Set'. It does not explain whether this replaces or merges existing XMP, or any side effects on the item. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the impact of the operation.

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 extremely concise at 13 words, directly stating the action and the key requirement (complete XMP XML string). Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks information about return values or error states (e.g., invalid XML, item not found). Given the absence of an output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing that the operation returns a success indicator or throws an error.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds that the xmp_xml must be a 'complete XMP XML string', which provides important semantic nuance beyond the schema's description. This clarifies that partial or incremental XML should not be 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 uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('raw XMP metadata on a project item'), and specifies that the user must provide the complete XMP XML string. This differentiates it from sibling tools like set_metadata or get_xmp_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_xmp_metadata or set_metadata. It does not mention any prerequisites or error conditions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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