set_scratch_disk_path

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, requirements, or return behavior. It discloses none of these. The phrase "expanded operation" is opaque and does not clarify whether this mutates project settings, requires admin privileges, or has any irreversible effect.

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 short but not information-dense; it sacrifices substance for brevity. A single vague sentence that restates the name provides no value and feels truncated rather than concisely complete.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (setting a specific Premiere Pro setting) and the absence of annotations, output schema, and sibling differentiation, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain the concept of a scratch disk, the meaning of 'expanded', expected inputs, or any side effects—leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 declares zero parameters but allows additionalProperties. The description does not mention what properties might be expected (e.g., paths, drive letters) nor that it accepts any. Although the schema coverage is vacuously 100%, the baseline of 4 for zero-param tools is not met because the tool may effectively take unnamed properties and the description fails to clarify that. The agent is left guessing.

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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name ("set scratch disk path"), with only the vague qualifier "expanded operation" added. It offers no explanation of what a scratch disk path is, what "expanded" means, or how this tool differs from the sibling set_project_scratch_disk. This qualifies as a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_project_scratch_disks or set_project_scratch_disk. No context, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided. An agent has no basis to decide if this is the right tool for the job.

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