ipt_set_basic_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it 'writes to the IPT' (mutation) and explicitly discloses that omitted fields are preserved, clarifying that this is a partial update rather than a full replace. It does not describe failure modes or validation, but the partial-update disclosure is valuable and goes beyond a bare 'set' statement.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the write operation, then lists the fields, and ends with the critical partial-update behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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 setter with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core fields and the update behavior. It does not explain the metadataLanguage parameter or clarify the coreType naming, but given the schema provides enums and descriptions for many params, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, so the description must add meaning. It lists most parameters (title, description, license, language, updateFrequency, coreType as 'type') and adds allowed license values (cczero, ccby, ccbync) beyond the schema. However, it omits metadataLanguage and uses 'type' instead of the schema's coreType, which could cause minor confusion. Still, it adds useful semantic context.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Set') on a specific resource (IPT basic metadata) and enumerates the fields it affects (title, description, license, language, update frequency, type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ipt_set_contacts or ipt_set_coverage, which target different metadata aspects.

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 provides clear context by listing the exact fields this tool manages, which implicitly tells an agent when to choose it over other set_* siblings. It also includes the behavioral note that omitted fields are left unchanged, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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