set_metadata

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses overwrite behavior ('Overwrites any existing value for the same key+doc_id combination'), which is critical for a write operation. No other side effects are mentioned, but for a simple key-value set, this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a critical behavioral note. No extraneous information; every word earns its place.

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 simple set operation with no output schema and one sibling for retrieval (get_metadata), the description covers the core behavior and scope. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., invalid doc_id) and side effects like versioning, which could be relevant in a document-oriented tool set.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains that doc_id is optional and scopes the metadata, adding context beyond the schema's default null. Key and value are described only as 'key-value pair', providing minimal enhancement over raw schema titles.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Set'), resource ('metadata key-value pair'), and optional scoping ('optionally scoped to a document'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_metadata' and other tools, providing a specific verb-resource combination.

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 explicit usage guidelines regarding when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'get_metadata' for retrieval). The context is implied but not stated, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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