set_asset_custom_meta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses a meaningful side effect (reindexing) and the clear-field behavior. It doesn't mention permissions or error cases, but for a simple write operation it provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear bulleted list for the parameter mapping. Every sentence earns its place – no fluff, all high-signal 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?

Six parameters, no output schema, but the description explains the conditional parameter selection logic and side effects. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention what happens after clearing or on invalid input.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping field shapes to specific params (value, custom_meta_value_id, custom_meta_value_ids) and explaining the alias relationship for text. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 starts with 'Write to a custom meta field on an asset' – a specific verb, resource, and target. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like set_access_request_custom_meta (different resource) and get_asset_meta (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?

Provides detailed guidance on which parameter to pass based on field shape (free/select/multi), plus how to clear the field. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the field-shape mapping is strong practical guidance for correct use.

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