set_input_deinterlace_field_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., input existence), error behavior for invalid field_order, reversibility, or whether the change applies immediately. The only behavioral hint is the allowed values for field_order, which is more parameter semantics.

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 extremely concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear args list. Every element serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the action.

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 setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose and parameters, but it lacks context on error conditions, side effects, or usage conditions. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 the description must compensate. It does: it names both parameters and provides the allowed values for field_order ('OBS_DEINTERLACE_FIELD_ORDER_TOP or _BOTTOM'). This adds meaningful clarity beyond the bare schema.

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 the action: 'Set an input's deinterlace field order.' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and a precise resource ('input's deinterlace field order'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_input_deinterlace_field_order and set_input_deinterlace_mode.

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 implies usage from the purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or reference to related getter/setter tools. The guidance is adequate for a straightforward setter but lacks explicit context.

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