Tool Edit Metadata

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does disclose the dual-target side effect (docinfo+XMP) and the destructive clear-all path. However it is silent on whether the original file is modified in place, what overwrite does, and reversibility, leaving material behavioral risk undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packs operation, side-effect, destructive mode, and workflow pairing with zero wasted words. The semicolon and dash structure keeps the clear special case and the sanitize pairing immediately readable.

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 mutating tool with 9 params, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it never explains in-place vs output behavior, overwrite merge semantics, or how the dual-rite manifests on clear. The output schema may cover return values, but core invocation semantics remain guesswork.

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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. Only clear=true receives real semantics; the roles of overwrite and output, and how title/author/subject etc. interact with overwrite, are left to name-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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('编辑元数据') and adds the dual-write mode ('docinfo+XMP 双写'), making the tool's scope unambiguous. No sibling tool targets metadata, so this clearly differentiates it from the extraction and content-manipulation tools in the family.

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?

It states a concrete invocation context ('对外发布前配合 sanitize 使用') and a conditional mode (clear=true 清空全部), which tells an agent when this workflow step matters. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, so it stops just short of the highest bar.

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