clip_set_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and does not mention whether existing fields are overwritten, whether empty values are allowed, what the output looks like, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 immediately states the verb, resource, and scope. Every word contributes value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 tool is simple (3 required params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks context about when to use it relative to clip_set_property or clip_get_metadata, and does not disclose behavioral details like overwriting existing metadata. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete for an agent to confidently select it among many clip-related tools.

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 (clip_name, key, value) with clear descriptions (e.g., examples for metadata field names). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra value beyond reinforcing that only a single field is set per call. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the meaning effectively.

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 a single metadata field on a clip' uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('metadata field on a clip'), making the function clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clip_set_name (sets clip name) and clip_set_property (likely a different concept), and from clip_get_metadata (read vs write).

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 usage for setting a single metadata field, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clip_set_property or clip_get_metadata. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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